Yeah Right, so vote for McKKKain?

This is just one more example of racist bullshit on this site by someone pretending to be a progressive. His bigotry differs little from the Klan. Comrades, ignore this kind of disinformation. It's time to put all the democrat intrmural yadda-yadda to bed and unite to defeat the war criminals the author's remarks support in practice.

by James Cordray (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 52 comments) on Sunday, June 8, 2008 at 11:16:07 PM
 

Thats a thought, not

But at least if you criticize McCain or Bush you can't get called any names worse than a liberal.

Are we going have to listen to these racist accusations everytime somebody criticizes Obama.  Of course, if you criticize Israel, and you get called an anti-semite more often than not.  So Obama's speech to Israel is double protected.

It's funny, Israel as I recall, was a big supporter of South Africa during Apartheid.  Funny how this is not mentioned in the press even though Obama has just publicly shown his great support for Israel and her history, and is rightly opposed to injustice that both African-Americans and Jews have experienced.   What might South African blacks be thinking.  Of course, Israel has it's own Apartheid going with the Palestinians, but this seems not much of a concern to Obama. Is his compassion to injustice limited?

In fact, his comments on Jerusalem, calling for the support of an undivided Jerusalem capital of Israel was the most single damaging statement any American President or wannabe President has ever said with regard to a possible 2 state solution. The Palestinians would never accept this.  They heard this and must have immediately thought that maybe that Change he is going to bring will not be for the better.

So call me an anti-semitic racist.  I care not because I am neither.  Those who resort to name calling show their true colors.    Defenders of the Lie.

by pft (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 302 comments) on Monday, June 9, 2008 at 2:16:08 AM
 

hey Obama troll....

Look, if we don't like the fact that Chimpy's supporters blindly follow him without any regard for honesty or objectivity, then how are we supposed to do the same thing for Obama?

And if someone openly discusses issues they have with his voting record or percieved hypocracies is his rhetoric, is it wise to jump immediately to slandering them with the mindless "racist" ad hominum attacks?

It would seem to me that this kind of approach would drive more people away as well as exposing your position as simply mindless attack-based debate with no intellectual support.

Now how is that supposed to help Obama's campaign? Sometimes you have to think these things through, you know. Sligning the mud of racism slurs doesn't make your stand on the issues look good or even rational. It makes you (and by extention Obama supporters) look like a zealot.

So argue against his points, if you can. Then maybe you can get somewhere and really help Obama's campaign. But that means you would have to do some research and put some real effort into it. If it's worth it to you, give it a shot.

by scott creighton (21 articles, 9 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 168 comments) on Monday, June 9, 2008 at 7:48:02 AM
 

Expectations

Senator Obama will have to move to the center if he wants to be elected. During the primaries he had to tailor his rhetoric to the far-left element of the Democratic Party because that is who shows up at caucuses. A very good strategy. Now that he has the nomination wrapped up, he will throw the far-left Democrats under the bus and move to the center. He is going to have to do some serious flip flopping because most of what he said during the primaries will not fly with independents and disenchanted Republicans. He will need those voters to win because even though the rabid Bush haters/9-11 conspiracy crackpots are a small, but influential part of the Democratic party and he knows that there aren't enough of them to elect him. He is a smart political hack from Chicago and knows what he has to do.

Hillary's big problem during the primaries was that she thought she had the nomination locked down and started moving to the center too soon causing her to lose support from far-left Democrats and media all over the place. They weren't ready to see the real Hillary - a political opportunist who would do or say anything to get elected.

If Obama is to win, his supporters cannot call everyone who is critical of him a racist to shut them up. That will backfire on Obama big time.

by Mad Jayhawk (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 209 comments) on Sunday, June 8, 2008 at 11:35:59 PM
 

THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!

This is part of what Naomi Kline mentioned in the Media Reform Conference this weekend. Not to mention his war plans, moving troops to Afghanistan, Kuwait and replacing those troops with mercenaries. then the fact that Obama has no plan to end Global Warming (to do so would piss off his corporate sponsors) or any plan to help the poor. If you watch the video clip, you hear a voice yell out "Obama funds the war" that is transfered onto the video screen type. That was me!!!

Change as in changing seats on the Titanic. 

That's what I believe. 

by Michael Cavlan (5 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 198 comments) on Monday, June 9, 2008 at 12:02:43 AM
 

Yeah, that's just great ...

pledge $30 billion of our dollars to a nation that owes all the banks. Makes sense to me.

Anyone who has been paying attention knows that Obama is nothing but a stooge for the same fools who have been blundering us into war after war.

They'll be "change" alright - but it won't be anything I can believe in ...

by Mr M (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 8 diaries, 1237 comments) on Monday, June 9, 2008 at 12:41:23 AM
 

Obama is about as "different" as the Clintons...

he just hasn't made all the money and the connections yet.

But don't worry, the election is fixed, like it has been for nearly a decade, so we get mcCain/Lieberman in '08.

Obama proved to me that he is just as criminal as the others when he responded to a question about arresting Bush by saying that he will 'appoint a commission" to "see if" any crimes had been committed.

Last time I checked, an illegal war of aggression for natural resources was pretty much THE crime of all crimes.

He actully said he didn't want to "appear" partisan as that might cause him problems.

Wow. How stupid does he think we are? I mean, what is the demographic these people are pitching too?

Hey, please, if you can find that Naomi Klein video of her at the NCMR, please link to my site and post it as a comment somewhere. I would love to see that and put it up. I can't find it anywhere.

If it is even mildly realistic about Obama, my guess is the Obamatrolls will have destroyed it any way possible.

by scott creighton (21 articles, 9 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 168 comments) on Monday, June 9, 2008 at 7:38:46 AM
 

Change?

The change is who would be in the White House.  It's a matter of personal ambition.  Both McCain and Obama will play to the monied special interests who actually control politics in this country (the people sure don't).

To actually stand for change would piss off the special interests who contribute so much campaign money and the MSM who control most election coverage.  Obama is no dummy.  He realizes the path to realizing his personal ambition is to be for sale in the American way which makes that legal.

The Republicans and Democrats (except for a few maverick Congressional candidates who manage to beat the system) can be reliably counted on to support militarism, imperialism and corporatism.  If you want to vote for change you can believe in, there are options, but they aren't U.S. Senators.

by Bill Samuel (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 227 comments) on Monday, June 9, 2008 at 8:01:04 AM
 

If People want change, then they need to act

I think it's clear that the change that people are hoping that Obama represents is not really change at all, but a continuation of war crimes and crimes against humanity. What Dennis Loo's piece tells us is that we the people of this country have to quit passing off our responsibility to an elected official to create change in which there is an actual end to illegal and immoral wars, torture, and theocracy. People have to quit thinking that the vote is the only power they have...we know from the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections that the ability to vote was not much power at all. What we do have is the power of personal responsibility to stand up, speak out, and resist the current and continued war crimes and crimes against humanity. Resist. 

by Jill McLaughlin (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 3 comments) on Monday, June 9, 2008 at 8:05:09 AM
 

go ahead McKinnyize Obama

You know what you call a candidate who doesn't support Israel? Shirley McKinney. She was a Democratic incumbent who couldn't hold on to her voters because she went against AIPAC. And you think Obama could win a seat as dog catcher if he opposed AIPAC?

So, he goes along on that and you support McKinney, someone who wil surely lose, thus, literally helping McCain to win. There are other ways to cause change to happen in the middle east. For example, the new J-Street project aims at mobilizing the American Jewish community and others who want to support Israel while opposing Israel's current policies-- kind of like those of  us who support the US but oppose Bush adn corporatist policies. 

OTOH, calling this writer a racist is somewhere between incredibly stupid, hyperbolic, hysterical and insane. I didn't read one word that was racist. Save the accusation or be accused of crying wolf.

Obama is far from perfect, was my 4th or fifth choice from the whole crop, but he has the potential to become a great president. To get there, he has to move to the center and bring people together. Once elected, he can lead people. I trust he will do that and make us more proud than ashamed. McKinney or Nader might speak words that make us proud, but without the power to DO the pride is hollow. They will never have the power to DO us proud. It's a gamble, supporting Obama. But the alternatives don't get us where we want to go. They just give us moments of feeling good about voting. They don't help and may hurt the future.

by Rob Kall (746 articles, 3832 quicklinks, 320 diaries, 1609 comments) on Monday, June 9, 2008 at 8:07:19 AM
 

Move to the center...

You know who coined that little tactic? Bill Clinton. And he said it was for the elections, but what did he really do? NAFTA, welfare reform, Sudan bombing, blah blah blah. Now we know what his "move to the center" plan was; to get rich selling off democracy to the globalists. Why do we have to "move to the center" when every single online poll that I saw, kucinich won.

and if it weren't for the MSM silencing the efforts of Kucinich, he would have won hands down.

In fact, Obama, if anything (with the exception of Israel and Iran) has moved further Left to garner the support of the Edwards/ Gravel/ Bidden/ Kucinich supporters.

and we are still talking about "move to the center"? Come on, Rob. We need to move to the center like we need a war in Iran. it only validates their position.

by scott creighton (21 articles, 9 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 168 comments) on Monday, June 9, 2008 at 9:34:25 AM
 

What Options Do We Have?

First, to James Cordray, who accuses me of racism and rhetorically asks if I'd rather we voted for McCain: as others have very articulately stated, declaring Obama off limits for criticism simply because he's black is a scoundrel's argument. I suggest Cordray read my last posting at OpEd News: click here in which I expose the racist agenda behind those like Mike Huckabee who "joke" about shooting Obama and ask himself if these are the comments of a racist.

As "pft" correctly notes, Obama's remarks about Israel and Iran are self-evidently not those of someone who is opposed to all forms of racism and national chauvinism. In Obama's world, it's good to Jewish, but bad to be Palestinian. It's fine to be Israel, but if you're Persian, well, get ready to get bombed. 

The other, perhaps more important, certainly more substantive point that JC made - and Rob Kall, our esteemed OpEd leader too - is that the choice is either Obama or McCain. As long as we continue to think that we have to choose from either the red, white and blue Republican or the red, white and blue Democrat and that this - and electoral politics more generally - exhausts our real choices about public policy then the game that the two major parties play on the people will continue indefinitely. 

As I point out at the end of the Preface to my book, Impeach the President: the Case Against Bush and Cheney: 

In an episode of the TV show “The Simpsons,” Homer finds himself in an alien spaceship orbiting Earth. The aliens have managed to kidnap the Republican and Democratic Party nominees for president and have them imprisoned in capsules on their ship. Hitting buttons randomly on the ship’s control, Homer inadvertently jettisons the two candidates into deep space. Doh! After this, Homer somehow manages to steer the spaceship back to Earth and upon landing in Washington, D.C. finds the two aliens, disguised as the two presidential candidates, giving campaign speeches together on the Capitol Steps. Homer unmasks the aliens, revealing them to be two very large, very grotesque, octopus-looking creatures. The crowd gasps. The aliens hesitate for a moment. Then one of them says to the crowd: “It’s a two-party system; you have to vote for one of us!” There is a pause and then someone from the crowd says: “He’s right!” [1]

***

As for the argument that Obama's swinging to the "center" (it speaks volumes, by the way, that Obama's bellicose, war mongering talk at AIPAC and Hillary's "obliterate" Iran talk are now the "center") from the "far left" in order to get elected: Obama's been very consistent in his remarks throughout the campaign. His comments to AIPAC aren't any different really from those he has made before on the campaign trail. He has said all along that he thinks that he is a better defender of "American power and influence" than Bush and Cheney and that his disagreements with them are over the fact that he thinks that Bush and Cheney have harmed "American power and influence."

Here, for example, among many, is what he said in Chicago on October 2, 2002, five months before the Iraq invasion:

Obama's saying that the illegal, immoral and unjust invasion of Iraq is a "dumb war" is like saying that a serial killer is dumb. "I don't object to his doing the killing. I object that he chose his victims stupidly." Obama also said similarly that he thought the problem with the Military Commissions Act of 2006 was that it was "sloppy." What, pray tell, is "sloppy" about torture? That blood is spilled sloppily onto the floor and that someone's got to clean it up? What, pray tell, is "sloppy" about stripping people of the right to challenge their indefinite detention? Is that what one of the American Revolution's explicit grievances - the absence of habeas corpus - was, sloppy?  

People need to probe beneath the surface of things and look at the essence of things. The 2008 Democratic nominee is, by self-admission, an admirer of George H.W. Bush's foreign policy. The Democratic Party of 2008, in other words, is the GOP circa late 1980s. Is that what you want?

Last year many Democrats, upon hearing that Bush and Cheney were thinking of starting another war, this time on Iran, said if he does that then we'll impeach them. Roll forward to spring and summer of 2008 and the leading Democrats are calling for "totally obliterating" Iran and are buying hook, line and sinker the White House's fabrications about their drive to war. The American people are being told that we have no choice but to follow along with this.

We do have a choice. We don't have to follow Bush, McCain and Obama down their path of more war crimes and crimes against humanity. 

We can and must resist. There is, in fact, no moral alternative to resistance. For instance, the National Religious Campaign Against Torture (NRCAT) introduced their "Banners Across America" initiative on June 5 for religious institutions and organizations to fly banners condemning torture. Over three hundred of them are doing so. See click here

by Dr. Dennis Loo (13 articles, 1 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 27 comments) on Monday, June 9, 2008 at 8:59:28 AM
 

As the bull charges the cape.

It seems that to apply your considerable mental and moral outrage to the specifics of a candidate's speech on any single occasion is kind of a waste of effort. It is the bull charging the cape. It is to be misdirected.

One's judgment of a candidate should be predicated on the abilities of that candidate, not what he specifically said to one or another special interest group in order to curry electoral favor. This, or any, candidate will not be stepping into the oval office today nor for at least another seven months. Today's mix of problems in their variety and in their severity will not be what the next president will be dealing with. The next president will be dealing with next year's set of problems, some alike, some different. Some will be more severe, some will be less so.

The idea is to elect a president who has the qualifications to deal with those problems, whatever they may be. Among the qualifications required are a well developed intellect, the self discipline to use it, an even temper, a demonstrated ability to work with others, including those he may not agree with, and a reasonable expectation of getting the congress to go along with him. Then there is the primary qualification, which is a devotion to uphold, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. The rest is squabbling over crumbs.

If, however, you are inconsolable about your main choices, you may choose a sideline candidate to help you sleep well, as there is not a likelyhood of deriving any better result from your vote. You may throw your hat in the ring, and lose and be financially ruined, but able to sleep well. Or, the best choice, work your ass off to get a congress that will hold the president you don't like in check. There are other choices, but they quickly descend into impractibility and personal peril.

So, batter up!

by John Sanchez Jr. (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 1007 comments) on Monday, June 9, 2008 at 12:34:38 PM
 

America needs a "real change" instead of what is proposed

America has lost her independency.The presidents must have the Jewish Lobbies' support.It doesnt matter who the President will be unless US gets rid of Israeli Lobby.If you dont change the effect of Jews, nothing changes.

by Merih Atilla (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Monday, June 9, 2008 at 9:11:09 AM
 

Please read...

The iran Trap, and my little preface that I took the liberty of adding.

http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2008/06/09/the-iran-trap/ 

It puts this into perspective quite nicely.

by scott creighton (21 articles, 9 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 168 comments) on Monday, June 9, 2008 at 9:26:48 AM
 

Tell us all about it

Hey Jaybird, I noticed you called people seeking the truth about 911"crackpots". Why don't you fill us all in on why you believe the official fairy tale? Why do people know they lied about the Iraq war, but just can't seem to believe they would lie about 9/11?

by Roger Thomas (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 25 comments) on Monday, June 9, 2008 at 10:26:11 AM
 

Obama is a Tool?

Maybe so, it's hard to decypher the substance through all the rhetoric.  There are two things that Obama has done that make me hopefull thought:  1.  the majority of is campaign money comes from people making donations of $200 or less.  This means that he is less beholden to corporate interests than the other candidates have been and it also means he is supported widely by normal everyday americans.  2.  He worked with Dean to throw the lobbiests out of the DNC.  Exactly how effective this new policy will be has yet to be seen but it is exactly the kind of ethical reform his supporters expect of him and so was a very encouraging sign.  And as for the APICAMOUSE or whatever, I get threatening emails anytime I question Israel identity as a jewish state so of course he is gonna pay them lip service.  He has to do it to get elected.  Seriously though, why doesn't Israel just declare itself secular and offer citizenship to all palastinians?  And as for Iran, look it's very simple.  The entire idea of non-proliferation is stupid.  The genie is out of the bottle, I say nukes for everyone!  And then adopt a strict policy of - if you use one expect everyone else that has one to fire on you. 

by erik mouse (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 95 comments) on Monday, June 9, 2008 at 12:22:44 PM
 

do you see the irony in your own statement?

You said: "One's judgment of a candidate should be predicated on the abilities of that candidate, not what he specifically said to one or another special interest group in order to curry electoral favor."

Aren't "We the People" the largest 'special interest' group? You could fill libraries on what have we been promised by those running for office - promises made to "curry electoral favor" so we will vote for them.

How's that working for 'us' so far?

To let judgment pass on a candidate by saying in essence, "Oh he/she HAS to say that BS so he/she can curry electoral favor," is really another example of "The ends justify the means." A contemptible code of ethics that has led us to the mess we are in now - the war, torture, all of it based on that morally bankrupt code.

It is also the basis for the justification for NOT impeaching the criminal whitehouse. In essence: We can't do or say what's right because there's the possibility we won't get what we want, and what we want is more important than what is right to do or say. Really? I can't imagine telling my kids that BS should be part of their moral code. 

It's long past time for candidates to state what they mean, stand up for what they believe in - irregardless, it's time for the rest of us to do the same thing. The fact that we have not been doing so for so long is - imo - part of the reason that fascism is on the rise here in the good ol' USA. People are afraid to stand up and say "NO! This is WRONG! I won't be a part of this!" and instead they mealy-mouth and pander and BS people - is that what kind of person you want representing you? How do you know when or whether they are BS-ing YOU?

by Cheryl Abraham (13 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 139 comments) on Monday, June 9, 2008 at 2:16:46 PM
 

FYI My post was in response to:

John Sanchez Jr.

Where he posted: 

As the bull charges the cape.

by Cheryl Abraham (13 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 139 comments) on Monday, June 9, 2008 at 2:19:24 PM
 

Do you have a candidate in mind that goes straight arrow...

without losing? Can you suggest something that they can say to endear themselves to the biggest interest group which you claim to be the one hundred million individuals of the electorate at large?

Do you paw the ground before going for the cape?

You missed the point. What they say now cannot possibly be applicable to the conditions during their administration except in the most vague and tenuous terms. If they couched their positions in those terms, you'd say they were lacking in specifics. When they give specifics, it is to solve current problems which may or may not still be present in this dynamic world when they are in a position to do something about it.

Judge the candidates by their capabilities or suffer the consequences of your poor decision making procedures.

by John Sanchez Jr. (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 1007 comments) on Monday, June 9, 2008 at 3:16:24 PM
 

And, for a change,...

that is something you can believe in.

by John Sanchez Jr. (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 1007 comments) on Monday, June 9, 2008 at 3:17:32 PM
 

You said it yourself

Without 'losing' -so what you're saying is that the ends justify the means. I'm not saying at all that this isn't how the game is played, I'm just saying it's dishonest and crappy.

When you do not do/say the right thing because you might lose, you have already lost. IMO. Perhaps you don't lose an election or the job or the raise or what have you - but you've lost a piece of your good conscience and if you keep doing it, and you keep justifying it because some outcome might be affected by you not standing up for what's right then eventually you will lose your own moral compass entirely. You also miss the opportunity to see what would happen if you stood up for what is right, what effect that could have on people - it may not necessarily end up to be a negative, and what's the potential there worth?

Uh, I'm not a member or believer of ANY specific religion but I have to agree with this:

"For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?"

I don't know about the 'soul' part - but look at what a lack of conscience and personal integrity on the part of our leaders has done for our country so far.

by Cheryl Abraham (13 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 139 comments) on Monday, June 9, 2008 at 3:45:31 PM