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, 56 comments) on Sunday, Jun 8, 2008 at 11:16:07 PM

  (0+)

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, 601 comments [7 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Jun 9, 2008 at 2:16:08 AM

  (0+)

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 (25 articles, 11 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 244 comments) on Monday, Jun 9, 2008 at 7:48:02 AM

  (0+)

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 (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 652 comments [56 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Sunday, Jun 8, 2008 at 11:35:59 PM

  (0+)

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 (15 articles, 0 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 538 comments [131 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Monday, Jun 9, 2008 at 12:02:43 AM

  (0+)

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 (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 66 diaries, 2845 comments [654 recommended, 27 rejected]) on Monday, Jun 9, 2008 at 12:41:23 AM

  (0+)

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 (25 articles, 11 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 244 comments) on Monday, Jun 9, 2008 at 7:38:46 AM

  (0+)

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 (5 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 445 comments [14 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Jun 9, 2008 at 8:01:04 AM

  (0+)

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, Jun 9, 2008 at 8:05:09 AM

  (0+)

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 (952 articles, 4177 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Monday, Jun 9, 2008 at 8:07:19 AM

  (0+)

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 (25 articles, 11 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 244 comments) on Monday, Jun 9, 2008 at 9:34:25 AM

  (0+)

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 (39 articles, 1 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 78 comments) on Monday, Jun 9, 2008 at 8:59:28 AM

  (0+)

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. (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 25 diaries, 1791 comments [148 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Monday, Jun 9, 2008 at 12:34:38 PM

  (0+)

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, Jun 9, 2008 at 9:11:09 AM

  (0+)

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 (25 articles, 11 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 244 comments) on Monday, Jun 9, 2008 at 9:26:48 AM

  (0+)

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, 131 comments [10 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Monday, Jun 9, 2008 at 10:26:11 AM

  (0+)

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 (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 106 comments) on Monday, Jun 9, 2008 at 12:22:44 PM

  (0+)

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, 2 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 207 comments) on Monday, Jun 9, 2008 at 2:16:46 PM

  (0+)

John Sanchez Jr.

Where he posted: 

As the bull charges the cape.

by Cheryl Abraham (13 articles, 2 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 207 comments) on Monday, Jun 9, 2008 at 2:19:24 PM

  (0+)

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. (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 25 diaries, 1791 comments [148 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Monday, Jun 9, 2008 at 3:16:24 PM

  (0+)

that is something you can believe in.

by John Sanchez Jr. (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 25 diaries, 1791 comments [148 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Monday, Jun 9, 2008 at 3:17:32 PM

  (0+)

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, 2 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 207 comments) on Monday, Jun 9, 2008 at 3:45:31 PM

  (0+)

What I said was that you don't know what the candidate will be up against by the time they are in office, so you should select for ability.

I suppose I could be wrong, you may have a crystal ball that really does work. You may even know a winning candidate that always tells the truth, never would ingratiate themselves to any part of the electorate, renders the proper honors to their mother, baseball and apple pie, and can fix all the world's ills. Vote for them. Not being one to turn away from perfection, I'd like for you name them, and if you're right, I'll vote for them.

Until then, I'll rely on judgment that has not led me far astray to date.

by John Sanchez Jr. (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 25 diaries, 1791 comments [148 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Monday, Jun 9, 2008 at 6:02:54 PM

  (0+)

With Obama being reviled for selling out to AIPAC at the same time he is being reviled as the terrorists' choice, I have to conclude that he is striking a nice balance.

by John Sanchez Jr. (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 25 diaries, 1791 comments [148 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Monday, Jun 9, 2008 at 6:21:03 PM

  (0+)

John Sanchez writes: "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...

"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."

First, it isn't a matter of what Obama said on a single occasion, it is what he has said consistently and repeatedly throughout his campaign.

Second, if we can't judge what someone stands for on the basis of what they're saying (and doing), then what are we to judge? You say that you have to judge them on their abilities.

Ok, let's take your position on its merits. What is that candidate's ability?

That he's smart, articulate, and a good dissembler?

That he has NOT shown the ability or courage to stand up against TORTURE? He has had, after all, all these years in the US Senate, the moral and legal responsibility to end these horrid practices of the Bush White House.

Look at what he said his objections are to the Military Commissions Act of 2006. Go to his website and read it carefully. Note that he isn't objecting to torture per se. He thinks that the MCA is "sloppy." He voted against it, but it isn't enough to vote against something. For something as monstrous as a bill that legalized torture and stripped habeas corpus rights from anyone designated at the President's whim as an "enemy combatant," anyone with a functioning conscience should have filibustered the bill.

Even the NY Times editorialized at the time that if you're going to filibuster anything, filibuster this.

That he has not the ability to distinguish lies from truth, judging from his signing onto in public and in no uncertain terms to the Bush plans to attack Iran? 

Is this someone you trust? If so, then you need to pay closer attention.  

by Dr. Dennis Loo (39 articles, 1 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 78 comments) on Monday, Jun 9, 2008 at 3:38:06 PM

  (0+)

"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."

You seem to take exception to having a small part of what you have said used to draw incorrect conclusions, and I don't blame you, it is a propagandist's technique. The right wing lie machine employs it ad nauseum. However, you don't seem to have those reservations about doing the same thing with Senator Obama's remarks to AIPAC.

After having provided a set of criteria that I see as valid to judge a candidate in an earlier comment, you extend the technique to what I have said.

You are, of course, free to dispose of your vote in whatever way you please, with whatever reason you care to use to justify it to yourself.

I will not follow your lead.

by John Sanchez Jr. (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 25 diaries, 1791 comments [148 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Monday, Jun 9, 2008 at 5:54:12 PM

  (0+)

Let me reiterate once more that I am not judging Obama on the strength of just his most recent speech to AIPAC. His speech before AIPAC is consistent with all of his other speeches on this subject and related subjects. There is a body of work to study here. There is a consistency to his approach if you would but look into it and study it. Will you not "follow" my lead in taking THAT seriously? Your approach rules out taking seriously what politicians say and do. You would willingly put our collective fates into the hands of people whose statements on the record cannot be relied upon. I will grant you that situations arise that require alternative responses, but you raised the matter of a politician's ability and I responded on this question of looking at what he/she has shown as a public official as evidence of their ability. Will you take that seriously and respond on the basis of that? It's your time - and my time - and you can do what you want, but if you are going to bother to write and advocate, then you ought to back up your statements with evidence. 

by Dr. Dennis Loo (39 articles, 1 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 78 comments) on Monday, Jun 9, 2008 at 6:04:23 PM

  (0+)

...and with John "more wars" McCain running, I am amazed at the feeble rhetoric that Obama will be “the war president”. This is a pitiful attempt to paint Obama with the broad brush of neocon international hegemony.

I can’t even say nice try.

How about ivory tower late’ drinking liberal?

American politics is so shallow.

Could we have an actual debate on real issues?

No, "Obama is the war president".

McCain, 44th president of the US of A. 

by John R Moffett (89 articles, 18 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 697 comments [14 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Jun 9, 2008 at 5:04:01 PM

  (0+)

You say: 

[This is] "feeble rhetoric that Obama will be 'the war president.' This is a pitiful attempt to paint Obama with the broad brush of neocon international hegemony.
 I can’t even say nice try.  How about ivory tower late’ drinking liberal? American politics is so shallow. Could we have an actual debate on real issues?"

Ok, John. Let's have a debate. What's feeble about the evidence I presented? If you want to discuss facts and evidence, then do it. Refute the evidence. Provide contrary evidence.

Tell us why and show us why we should not take seriously what Obama said at AIPAC and what he has said in so many other fora in the same fashion. Tell us why we should not take seriously what Obama has done and not done as a U.S. Senator.

I would be pleased as punch to have such a fact-based debate. But don't claim that politics is so shallow and then proceed to prove it by your own empty posting comprised of name calling and ad hominem attacks. 

How's this for a start? click here

by Dr. Dennis Loo (39 articles, 1 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 78 comments) on Monday, Jun 9, 2008 at 5:41:28 PM

  (0+)

In my last posting to John Moffett I provided a link that isn't working. Don't know why. 

I'll try again, but if it doesn't work again, you can find the essay at my blog dennisloo.blogspot.com under the title "Into the Abyss." You can pull it up by doing a search term in the upper left hand corner of my blog.

(OK. I just tried the link and it's still not working, but if you do the above you WILL find the essay.) 

click here

by Dr. Dennis Loo (39 articles, 1 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 78 comments) on Monday, Jun 9, 2008 at 5:46:08 PM

  (0+)

I'd probably vote for Cheney... ;-)

Seriously, Dr. Loo is correct. You judge a person, a candidate, by the whole of his presentation. You judge how he (or she) will 'Do' the future based upon how he has done the past and present. In the 'psych biz', it has always been well acknowledged that past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior.

I will only vote for a person whose past behavior and statements suggest with some reasonable degree of certainty, that he will support the Republic, support the Constitution, support balance, fairness and integrity towards the world and support the Citizens of this nation (as a whole).

So my vote for either of the 'two' parties will not be missed.   

by richard (0 articles, 5 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 1359 comments [400 recommended, 8 rejected]) on Monday, Jun 9, 2008 at 7:08:00 PM

  (0+)

that FRAUD to give you "Change and Hope"?

Let's be real, as his own minister said the man is a POLITICIAN first and foremost. He strongarmed his way into the political arena, first mugging Alice Palmer, then throwing his grandmother, minister, and church under the bus, then smearing Hillary with awful charges, then hoodwinking/extorting the DNC into making sure that he was the nominee.

As Kucinish said, "Change? I've got change in my pocket.

BO is no more about change than Sadam Hussein was about democracy.

by fou (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 98 comments) on Monday, Jun 9, 2008 at 7:42:42 PM

  (0+)