 |
|
Add to My Group
|
August 28, 2008 at 06:49:51
Promoted to Headline (H2) on 8/28/08: by Rob Kall Page 1 of 1 page(s) |
|
 
|
On August 20th, I interviewed one of the most famous living historians, Howard Zinn, author of the best-selling People's History of the United States, a book that should be read by every American, on a wide range of subjects. R.K. -Do you have any advice for Obama? 
This article covers his Advice to Obama on how to win.
H.Z. -Yes. I have advice for Obama. You want to win? - Speak boldly to the American people, the American people want to get out of Iraq. Speak boldly and say, "I'm going to withdraw from Iraq as fast as ships and planes can carry them"- , and I think that Obama will have a much better chance of winning the election because he will be speaking to the hearts of the American people, who really are sick of the war. And instead, he gives us these half-baked solutions about "I will withdraw in 16 months and will send some troops to Afghanistan and keep some troops in Iraq for security purposes."
Now that's - you know-- that's not what the American people want. And if he thinks he will win more votes by being moderate and centrist, I think he's wrong. So my advice to Obama, not just from the standpoint of being right, but even from the standpoint of being pragmatic and winning, is be bold - be bold on the war - be bold on having a single payer, government financed health system. Be bold on ending our position as a militarist nation. Obama is calling for a strong military - big military - he should stop doing that!
R.K. - Obama's biggest challenge is white male voters, particularly southern ones and any, any ideas on what it will take to get them to move to the left - to stop supporting right wing politicians who betray and screw them basically?
H.Z. - well I think he has to talk - I think he has to talk more about class issues - more about how this government and McCain as part of it , has been funneling all the wealth of this country into the rich. I mean, most of these white males are not rich people. They are middle-class, they are poor and I think he has to talk about how the Republicans are the party of the rich and how the Democrats are going to take up the legacy of Franklin D. Roosevelt and become a party of the poor and the middle class.
I think that is his best chance and I think he has to say to these people, who may think ahhh - well the Republicans are better on national security. Yes, ask these white male voters - has our security been enhanced by the war in Iraq? Are we more secure now and what is security? Is security gotten by military prowess or do we need health security and employment security, and all sorts of security for children and people in trouble., That's national security? He has to redefine - he has to redefine all the terms that are being used.
R.K. - That's a big challenge isn't it, the "languaging"-- the "Frank Luntzing"-- of American English?
H.Z. - yes
look for more excerpts from the interview appearing in coming days.
Thanks to James Magee 111 and Jay Farrington for transcribing the interview.
Listen to the full interview here, for a limited time:
Recording Download Link (Right-click the link and select "Save Link to Disk…") available until Sept. 19, 2008.
(If there's a free place to archive this kind of audio recording -- about 21 MB-- please drop me a note. )
Rob Kall is executive editor, publisher and site architect of OpEdNews.com, President of Futurehealth, Inc, more...)
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
 Contact Author |
Contact Editor |
 View Authors' Articles |
|
|
|
|
| 34 comments |
|
Absolutely.
And if anyone at the pinnacle of American politics will read and listen to a radical historian from Boston, it's Obama. by GLloyd Rowsey (104 articles, 65 quicklinks, 60 diaries, 828 comments [4 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Aug 28, 2008 at 7:10:30 AM  (0+)
|
|
Zinn is the real thing
He speaks truth consistently and boldly, and he represents true progressive thinking and philosophy. But I very much doubt whether Obama will totally embrace his views and positions. The political calculation of Obama is exactly like that of Bill Clinton and virtually all of the professionals running the Obama campaign; they keep believing that goint centrist is the winning strategy; keep hoping that independents will embrace their more centrist positions. And then they want true liberals and progressives to believe that after Obama wins the election that he will pursue more leftist/progressive policies. Well, dream on. Bill Clintong never did that and Obama will also not do that. Remember, ultimately there are powerful moneyed, corporate and other special interests that will exert strong pressure on an Obama administration to serve them, rather than create a government that really serves the vast majority of citizens. Change? After a few years of President Obama it will be "change you can keep dreaming for." by Joel S. Hirschhorn (141 articles, 50 quicklinks, 65 diaries, 546 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Aug 28, 2008 at 8:59:49 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Pressure
Pressure is key. THis is just part of a 30+ minute interview. Zinn has more to say about the changes he calls for and how to bring them about. I'm breaking the interview up into differnt topics, including zinn's vision for america, his take on impeachment and pelosi, his heroes... It was nice to see that on MSNBC, they mentioned Zinn and his book. We're leaking through. One thing Zinn did say was that we have to consider which of the candidates, of those with a chance of being elected, we will have a greater likelihood of influencing. He says Obama. by Rob Kall (952 articles, 4177 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Thursday, Aug 28, 2008 at 9:54:24 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: You're misrepresenting Zinn by trying to force him into your
own conceptual framework. You're a lesser-evilist, who's primarily focused on questions like "which of the candidates, of those with a chance of being elected, we will have a greater likelihood of influencing." That question is set up so that the only possible answer is "the Democrat." But Zinn doesn't really think like that at all. As anyone who's read him knows, he's the last guy in the world to be nurturing illusions about the Democrats. // He's a very nice guy, & was mainly just trying to be polite to you. But you're distorting his message by trying to force him into a framework of lesser-evilism. The inconvenient truth is that there is zero chance of "influencing" either major party candidate. Both will respond only to powerful industry lobbies. The only "difference" will be that the Democrat will ignore progressive aspirations less contemptuously than the Republican. It's merely the difference between a gruff & rude rejection letter, & a polite one. by Richard Mynick (2 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1552 comments [255 recommended, 5 rejected]) on Thursday, Aug 28, 2008 at 11:38:57 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Putting words into Zinn's mouth?
That's quite the power you ascribe to Rob Kall! I think Zinn is more than capable of saying whatever he wants, whenever he wants, to whomever he wants. Kall may not be as radical as you or I (or Zinn) but you have to appreciate the forum he has provided for those of us with more radical opinions. I mean, come on, he booked a show with with preeminent historian of our age -- a man who redefined and radicalized a field that had previously been very much in line with the state's version of events -- and you suggest that person would moderate his opinion just for this one media man? You may be right... Zinn might have just been being polite and temporarily moderating his opinion, but that's hardly RK's fault! You can't really blame him for asking the questions he's inclined to ask. As someone who radicals and progressives look to for guidance, it's Zinn's responsibilty to urge us into the streets and not merely be content with things getting bad and simply just voting for the evil of two lessers. This is something I've personally tried to urge Zinn and other prominent radicals to do when I've seen them speak (and in other forums). It's fine to simply talk about Gandhian militancy, but if you're just leaving it in the history books to rot... it's not going to do us a lot of good. I don't understand how someone who understands history and current politics so well can be merely content with pointing out the problems -- we need to take to the streets before it's too late! And people like Zinn and Chomsky should take be taking every opportunity to enthusiastically encourage such activity. by R. A. Louis (12 articles, 13 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 87 comments [3 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Aug 28, 2008 at 5:41:58 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: You've misunderstood. I wasn't talking about what Zinn said,
I was talking about how Rob presented it above, in this passage: One thing Zinn did say was that we have to consider which of the candidates, of those with a chance of being elected, we will have a greater likelihood of influencing. He says Obama.... I know perfectly well what Zinn thinks, having read a great deal of him. He has written brilliantly on what a fraud the 2-party system is, & on the essential two-faced duplicity of Democrats. What I'm objecting to is that Rob evidently framed a question to Zinn that could only be answered by the word "Obama." Then Rob presented the interaction as being representative of Zinn's thinking. This amounts to fishing for what you want to hear, then selecting only the part of the answer you want to hear, & reporting it as though it's the whole story -- which it's not. by Richard Mynick (2 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1552 comments [255 recommended, 5 rejected]) on Thursday, Aug 28, 2008 at 6:00:51 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Sorry. WRONG!
Reality is a b*tch, Rich. In this case, you chose to speculate rather than listen to the interview in which Zinn very clearly, very specifically says he will vote for Obama and then work like hell to push him. Listen. The link is also in the article, but here, I'll spoon feed you. <G> Listen to the full interview here, for a limited time: Recording Download Link (Right-click the link and select "Save Link to Disk…") available until Sept. 19, 2008. And Ray, you're on the right track. Zinn specifically spoke about the need to engage in the kind of planned, committed actions that were engaged in in Selma and other parts of the south in the sixties by King and his fellow activists. I really liked Zinn, always have. I'll be posting more of the interview in coming days. by Rob Kall (952 articles, 4177 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Thursday, Aug 28, 2008 at 6:17:29 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Here is exactly what Zinn said (starting at 26:52 into the
interview, on the White Rose archive link, & running until 29:10. The whole interview is about 30 minutes long; Zinn arrived at about 8:00 minutes. I'm omitting the pauses & insignificant side meanderings, but this is otherwise very close to exactly what he said) -- Rob explains that many on OpEdNews are dissatisfied with the 2 major candidates, & asks, What does Zinn think about voting for 3rd parties, or not voting at all? Zinn: I totally understand the frustration of voting for someone you don't think will make fundamental change... Let me put it this way: For 2 minutes, I will support Obama...At the moment you go into the voting booth, you just don't have any more choice....the system is not giving you a choice...And it's just A versus A prime.... Or let me put it another way...While none of these candidates are going to make fundamental change, there may be some who are more susceptible to pressure than others... {brief digression on FDR} ....And I think that Obama, just maybe, just maybe, despite his limitations, may be more susceptible to pressure from outside.....I don't think people should put their energies into the electoral system...And I think 3rd parties are good when they carry on campaigns that present alternatives...Nader does very important work, telling the truth when no major candidate will tell the truth....But in the end, at that moment of voting, you may have to concede that there MAY be a slight advantage.....I think we can use every slight advantage we can get...You try to elect someone who will be slightly more open to you, then rush into that opening with everything you can.... Rob chips in happily, "Hold his feet to the fire, huh?" (29:10) 35:10 Rob asks, Who are some of your heroes? Who do you respect the most? I heard nothing about Zinn intending to "work like hell to push him." And the only comment about Zinn planning to vote for Obama was the "2 minutes in the voting booth" remark, which distinctly expressed distaste rather than enthusiasm. by Richard Mynick (2 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1552 comments [255 recommended, 5 rejected]) on Friday, Aug 29, 2008 at 12:49:33 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: You make Zinn sound good
I can see why both you and Rob respect him. I tend to agree with what you attribute to Zinn. Two minutes private thought in the polling both is probably about all that the distinction between A and Aprime is worth. Before then there are more important things for citizens and activists to be working on - the trash from this administration is at constitutional toxic fatality level. by Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 23 diaries, 1308 comments) on Friday, Aug 29, 2008 at 2:13:17 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Why are people that tell hard truths always called ...
... radical? "In a time of deceit telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." Orwell. I will vote for Obama when he says the first thing he'll do is open a full independent criminal investigation into the events of 9/11, and until he does that he can kiss-my-ass. How's that for radical? I'm tired of messing around. There's an 800lb. Gorilla in this room and Obama isn't paying any attention to it, and apparently neither are other supposedly intelligent people. This dog & pony show has gone on long enough. For those of you that think 9/11 isn't the issue, please explain to me what is more important than bringing to justice those that murdered 3,000 people in broad day-light and than used that crime to murder another 1,200,000 more and counting? I really want to know? Tell us?! Tell us what's so damn noble about a man that has already proven himself to be a liar even before he gains the seat of power and who will continue to cover for the cretins that committed that crime? I want to know?! I want to know how you justify covering for a man that is covering for these cretins? What moral cesspool are you dwelling in? When did covering-up for mass murders become fashionable among the political astute? I must of missed that meeting of progressives when they rationalized twisting your logic to accept genocide. I didn't get the memo that says one should shut their eyes to truth and except some false platitudes about reality of the situation. Here's your reality. It's me. It's Richard. It's other's like us "radicals" who haven't sold our souls to a reality that isn't real. What's real is that your precious Obama is covering for the murders that committed 9/11. What's real is whomever covers for him is covering for those murders. Get use to it - this Gorilla is gaining weight! by Mr M (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 66 diaries, 2845 comments [654 recommended, 27 rejected]) on Thursday, Aug 28, 2008 at 8:48:29 PM (0+)
|
|
There's zero chance of Obama doing anything of the sort.
He's not "progressive." He's not even a "liberal." He understands just how the system works, & whose interests it's supposed to serve, & is fully committed to serving those interests. Aside from being black, Obama is a thoroughly conventional US politician. He's already misrepresented himself outrageously by pretending to be "against the war," when what he really meant by "ending the war" was transferring troops to Afghanistan. Anyone under illusions about him being a new type of US politician should reflect on his choice of Biden as VP. Biden is Washington Establishment, business-as-usual. A look at the whole group of advisors Obama has gathered around himself shows the same thing. There's a reason why rightwingers like David Brooks are so keen on Obama. Anyone looking for more than superficial & cosmetic change from him is going to be quickly disappointed. by Richard Mynick (2 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1552 comments [255 recommended, 5 rejected]) on Thursday, Aug 28, 2008 at 9:24:54 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: I've been
giving (modestly, relative to my worth) to Arthur Silber, Iraq Veterans Against the War, Cindy Sheehan, and various Impeachment.Now organizations, for the last year. I agree with the previous two posts. But what will be the alternative come November? My present take is we'll be lucky if there's no enormous escalation to the east and north of the Levant, and if there's no presidential assassinations. Which of course means the world as a whole will be enven luckier. by GLloyd Rowsey (104 articles, 65 quicklinks, 60 diaries, 828 comments [4 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Aug 28, 2008 at 9:44:26 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: FDR AND OBAMA
I wonder if FDR was viewed as anything more than another establishment politician when he took office. The question is: When the United States falls into the impending depression, which candidate is most likely to look toward a governnment sponsored massive rebuilding of the American infrastructure based upon 21st century technology? Obama is the obvious answer. He, additionally, is less likely to violate the Constitution in a time of national duress, and less likely to resort to violence abroad to divert the nation's attention away from misery at home. He is hardly the ideal candidate, but short of some grand awakening of the left in this country for the need to build its own party with its own institutions and a coherent, consistent ideology based upon true equality for all people, Obama is the best we will be getting. by W.M.L. (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 537 comments [52 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Thursday, Aug 28, 2008 at 4:22:50 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Obama's FISA betrayal shows he'll violate the Constitution
if there's political pressure to do so. He hasn't made an issue out of Bush's signing statements. He went out of his way to side with Scalia twice last month on recent SCOTUS decisions. He hasn't said beans about stolen elections. His pointedly said in Berlin that he doesn't believe the US government has done anything in the last 7 years that it needs to apologize for. He hasn't uttered a pip of criticism of Israel, despite that nation's constant violations of international law. All these things point to an attitude that is very "flexible" towards the Constitution. The FDR comparisons are largely a diversion. One important difference is that at least FDR had the courage & honest to directly & unambiguously lambaste the financial oligarchs who had destroyed the economy through their rapaciousness. Obama hasn't said a word in that direction. In fact, he's very friendly with the oligarchs. They like him -- which should trouble the rest of us. // Another major difference is in the quality of his advisors. FDR gathered a lot of very serious reformers & idealists around him, while Obama is surrounded by poo-bahs from Wall Street, & various CFR guys who believe in America's right to global empire. So his team is basically pure establishment -- not in any way a "challenge" to the establishment. by Richard Mynick (2 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1552 comments [255 recommended, 5 rejected]) on Thursday, Aug 28, 2008 at 6:21:33 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Obama really said THAT?
I agree with your comment on Obama being willing to put aside the Constitution as evidenced by his FISA vote. After all what is a promise to see that the laws will be faithfully executed worth coming from a person who has already approved retrospective changes to laws. It could be that from a global perspective McCain may be a better option than Obama because McCain will be distrusted more quickly domestically and neither will be able to do what Americans hope their Presidents can do because (without accountability in the form of impeachment or prosecution for Bush) both will only have a thoroughly broken system to work with. by Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 23 diaries, 1308 comments) on Friday, Aug 29, 2008 at 1:53:56 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Yes, it was in an interview with CNN's Candy Crowley. She
directly asked him whether he thought the US govt under the Bush admin had done anything on the global stage that it should apologize for. (Since they were in Berlin, the context was global feelings towards the US.) He began his response with the words (as best as I can remember), "Well, I don't believe in the idea of the United States having to apologize for anything....", then went on to say that of course, some things could have been done better. There was an online video of this interview at the CNN website in the days after his Berlin visit. It might still be there. by Richard Mynick (2 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1552 comments [255 recommended, 5 rejected]) on Friday, Aug 29, 2008 at 9:16:07 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Here, Brett -- I found the link to the Crowley interview -
Crowley asked, "Do you think the US has been part of what's gone wrong in the world, in the last 7 years...." He said "No, I don't believe in the United States apologizing.... The US has overwhelmingly been a force for good in the world...." See it for yourself -- go to 10:14 into this 16 minute video, to hear the part I'm referring to. (You have to watch a 15-second commercial before the interview starts.) by Richard Mynick (2 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1552 comments [255 recommended, 5 rejected]) on Friday, Aug 29, 2008 at 9:27:55 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Thanks for sourcing the link, CNN has abbreviated it though
and it now seems to be shorter than 16 minutes. There is a difference between Obama saying America has nothing to apologise for in Germany to Germans and Obama saying he doesn't believe in the idea of America apologising in Germany to CNN for US domestic consumption. But against the larger criticism of Obama, that he has already shown that he will set aside the rule of law for political expedience (as per FISA) I'm not interested in quibbling about it. by Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 23 diaries, 1308 comments) on Monday, Sep 1, 2008 at 12:14:15 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Thanks for sourcing the link, CNN has abbreviated it though
and it now seems to be shorter than 16 minutes. There is a difference between Obama saying America has nothing to apologise for in Germany to Germans and Obama saying he doesn't believe in the idea of America apologising in Germany to CNN for US domestic consumption. But against the larger criticism of Obama, that he has already shown that he will set aside the rule of law for political expedience (as per FISA) I'm not interested in quibbling about it. by Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 23 diaries, 1308 comments) on Monday, Sep 1, 2008 at 12:15:08 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: W.M.I. let's paly a game ...
... you be Charlie Brown, and I'll be Lucy. I'm going to get this football ... by Mr M (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 66 diaries, 2845 comments [654 recommended, 27 rejected]) on Thursday, Aug 28, 2008 at 8:53:39 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: I'VE NEVER SUPPORT OBAMA LUCY
I simply asked who was more likely to engage in massive public works projects when the depression hits. The answer is obvious. So, while I would normally vote libertarian, although I disagree with their economics and environmental positions, that party having been overtaken by Bob Barr, I will be casting my vote for Obama. I have not voted for a Dem or Repug since 1972. by W.M.L. (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 537 comments [52 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Thursday, Aug 28, 2008 at 11:41:03 PM (0+)
|
|
Well here we are again...
This is the mistake the left always makes. We're in love with failure. It gives us something to do. Rather than identify candidates who truly represent our views, we go for the candidates who we think can win elections. And then we spend the next 2, 4, or 6 years trying to get that person to change who they really are into something we want them to be which they never will be. It never works but that's what we do. That's what you get when you refuse to vote your conscience. If we were committed to voting for people who held our own highest values, we would also be willing to work and fight to get those people elected even if they were long shots to begin with. Then the infrequent win would be worth the effort. At least someone who loves us would be there to represent us. But we're not willing to make the effort. Citizens shouldn't have to give up their jobs to petition government to do its job. When I think of the tens of thousands of hours I and others spent over the last 8 years to get Bush impeached... what a waste of time... only because the people we elected to office never really shared our values. Voting for a Democrat rather than voting for a person is how you guarantee that that failed strategy will go on forever. by Mark A. Goldman (81 articles, 2 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 243 comments) on Thursday, Aug 28, 2008 at 10:54:36 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: In love with REASON, not FAILURE
Mark, I agree with you 99%! I, too, have worked for candidates who represented peace and TRUE prosperity, not the prosperity of the countless war profiteers out there these days. Since most people believe the MSM when they proclaim that Kucinich,Paul, Nader,etc. have no chance to win it is a forgone conclusion that their votes will go elsewhere ("front runners"). I plead with people to vote their conscience, or at least their own best interest, all to generally no avail. I don't believe that Democrats are in love with failure-I do think that their actions speak more to the character traits which make them Dems or Progressives. Most all Progressives believe in examining all sides of an issue before making a decision, and probably can find some redeeming qualities in almost all candidates. The conservative Right seems to want to latch on to a person or policy in an un-wavering, inflexible manner with no room for discussion ("My country, right or wrong" or "hate the war, love the troops"). by KenH (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 24 comments) on Thursday, Aug 28, 2008 at 4:11:12 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Voting our conscience
these days means we have to accept the fact that things are going to have to get worse before they get better. We would be making that happen. Remembering, too, that if things get so bad, total anarchy, they may not be able to return to an improving state. I can't stand my congressman, Delahunt, D-MA, who refuses to vote for impeachment, nor forgive Obama on his position with FISA, but a vote for Nader or Cynthia is a vote for McCain, We learned that in the last election. What to do? It's really fucked up. The powers that be have us exactly where they want us, thinking we are in charge of our own destiny, but actually, totally, helpless. I like the suggestion to Obama that he should fake it, go along until elected and then once elected, assert himself. The only trouble is it will mean a bullet through his brains like JFK. The only way to avoid that is to get a true American patriot like Kucinich to power, but that will never happen if his own party and the mainstream media continue to ignore him and keep him "in his place". Successfully impeaching Bush and Cheney will bring two stand alone heros, Kucinich and Wexler, to the forfront of their party where they rightfully belong. Tell your congressperson that supporting impeachment is the most important thing he.she can do. Getting rid of scum at the top is absolute top priority. Any other actions they brag of is meaningless to our democracy. Hold them accountable to impeachment. Keep in their face and don't ever let them off thehook, come next election. It's time to get rid of these leaderless and clueless, self-aggrandizing incumbents. by Nick van Nes (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 595 comments [150 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Friday, Aug 29, 2008 at 1:42:41 AM (0+)
|
|
Zinn and reality
We here do not even notice when the 'media spin' manufactures our consent. Then we start to think like the media molds it; what if Obama says this or that, what if McCain says this or that? It is the media talking through us: they always discuss what an INDIVIDUAL SAYS but never in their discussion the INDIVIDUAL DOES ANYTHING. That is in our media the Iraq war was not the Bush/Cheney doing but some kind of a natural event like a weather. Saddam called a bad weather on himself, sort of. In the real world it should not matter what Obama would say. What should matter would be what he did. Like for instance if he had published a platfrom of a foreign policy which would start with 'War on terror is a Hoax and we are here to get rid of it'. Or 'Such and such infrastructure needs repair and the taxes are to be raised to do it.' Or 'Our State Department has to be reorganized so that it should at last do what it is for-diplomacy.' No, I don't think that class issue is important. Vision is. So far people see a very bright young man who surely impresses and looks terrific but he isd rather a symbol of vision than a vision on his own. The party he belongs to does not want to win. It is that obvious. And if he himself wants to win he better looks around at his current ' friends'. They take no prisoners. by Mark Sashine (72 articles, 19 quicklinks, 269 diaries, 4101 comments [130 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Aug 28, 2008 at 12:27:45 PM (0+)
|
|
where to go with 21Meg?
Not gonna deliver any comment at all directed at the content except to praise it as I believe this is not my ball park. I dugg this as it hadn't been dugg. I rated it because I think it's very well done. You really oughta digg your stuff, Robman. I've seen the diggs work wonders. ;-) Me preaching to the choir. The comments on this thread so far do a great job of saying anything I could dram of saying about Zinn or Obama or what Zinn says Obama should or could do to win. You know what I think about this circus, so again, I'll refrain from further comments. 21Meg audio clip. I do think this should be kept. If you don't find a host, keep it on your HD and let a friend keep a backup. I regret I don't have a spot to put it. My guess is, you haven't done your homework as I bet there is such a spot....for free. I'll have to ask one of my PCwizard sons. Kudos, Rob. I've done live broadcasting, interviews, blogcasts over the net and have been in the hot seat a few times too. You're not half bad for a Democrat. by Tony Forest (7 articles, 18 quicklinks, 166 diaries, 1429 comments [5 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Aug 28, 2008 at 1:28:39 PM (0+)
|
|
it may hurt, but baby steps first
I'm sitting here reading the complaints about Obama not really being about change, that neither major party will ever be about change because they are both beholden to the ruling elite and big money, yada yada yada. I agree! It's all true. BUT, as someone wrote, at least with the dems we get a polite no thank you letter instead of a rude, gruff one. Ok, well lets start with the polite no thank you letter, and then keep pushing. Lets take advantage of 4 years of a softer, gentler America and now focus on congressional elections, state govenorships, state senators, mayors, etc. The problem is people get worn out and and drift away after the wear and tear of national elections. We aren't going to change hundreds of years of greed and anglo-centric, euro-centric imperialistic politics with one national election. Sorry folks, but buck up, recruit more people and get that second wind. Lets start with Obama and keep charging. by truthseeker7 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 17 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Aug 28, 2008 at 3:43:56 PM (0+)
|
|
How
It won't really matter who wins. Though I think Obama would offer a smoother transition to a better life for ALL. Come next spring this Land is going to demand a redistrubution of the wealth. The way I say to get there is through the Mondragon Cooperative of the Basque in Northern Spain. Where they workers own the banks and Companies they work for. It also owns a Collage. Do you see where I am going? The workers cash in their shares upon retirement. Along with the Social Security, they can live quite a comfortable retirement. Still there are some tough nuts to crack on the right who will call it socialism. Last time I checked the Constitunion, Socialism was not unconstitutional. Though they will blow hard implying it is. by Michael Dewey (5 articles, 1 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 245 comments [12 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Aug 28, 2008 at 5:39:47 PM (0+)
|
|
Republocrats want the same thing as usual.
They want Americans to survive with medical care. They also want Americans to slave away for some dictatorial crook a number of hours each day. Besides that they want Americans to continue to think like slaves and suckers as usual. I don't see anyone getting any smarts. McCain is a crook working with crooks. Obama is a sucker surrounded by crooks. by John Hanks (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1760 comments [39 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Aug 28, 2008 at 7:25:17 PM (0+)
|
|
I have some advice for Obama
Quit. Tell people the truth, that you're a lackey for people who are the worst to ever walk this planet. That you're a boot-licker for pedophiles, child-rapists and mass murders. Tell people that this whole two-party system is corrupt to it's core. That it really doesn't make a difference which one of you get into the WH, that you both work for the same people and nothing either the Democratic Party or Republican Party do have anything in common with the will of the people of this land. Tell them you've been playing them for fools. Go to a church. Beg your former preacher for forgiveness and get down on your hands and knees and beg God for abandoning all that is holy and selling your soul to the devil. Tell the truth about what you know about 9/11, name names. Tell us who you meet with at the Bilderberg meeting and what these cretins have in store of us so that we can stop them and save humanity. Save yourself and us. Quit being a sell-out to a system the grinds people to death and makes more widows than anything else it produces. End your affiliation to the New World Order and their tyrannical march into a world only a fascist pig could love. Even if you've fooled yourself into thinking you're fooling those that are your masters and that when you finally get in you'll be there for the people, don't wait, come out now. Because if you don't, we'll come after you like we're coming after all these black-hearted scum murders. We'll hold you just as accountable. For as is stands, you are no better than them. You wallow in the same filth and the longer you stay there the more demented and corrupted you'll become. That's my advice. by Mr M (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 66 diaries, 2845 comments [654 recommended, 27 rejected]) on Thursday, Aug 28, 2008 at 8:14:16 PM (0+)
|
|
I second...
Mr. M's. He hit the nail and drove the down and dirty truth into the picture. It's true, the Democrats are "allowing" the Denver Police state. While all these peaceful protesters sit behind cages like ...well, like CHINA does it, and like animals in the city pound and the dems just stroll on by and their parties(and deals) never cease. (Repubs are even more bought off) Their lives are tainted with corruption and frankly, they don't hardly give a damn about our concerns. Protesting, now, behind a cage, a code of SILENCED! Politicians UNREACHABLE. [Protesters]A mile away with little they can say or Else! No more freedom of speech or the exercising thereof. ........................And, the shoe hit the floor. by shirley reese (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 592 comments [98 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Thursday, Aug 28, 2008 at 11:46:18 PM (0+)
|
|
And If Obama REALLY Wants to be Brave and Bold....
He should stand up and say that he is willing to confront the 800 pound gorilla in the room, the influence of Israel on American policies. Of course this would not do much to further his chances of getting elected and would be political suicide. But sooner or later we must tackle this pervasive influence which results in nothing but violence, destruction, chaos, and death. If Obama were REALLY smart and bold and brave, he would wait until after he is elected to address this singularly important problem. by Kris Malmquist (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 40 diaries, 108 comments [3 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Aug 29, 2008 at 12:31:48 AM (0+)
|
|
Obama had the most appeal
when at the start of his campaign he had the smallest chance of winning and felt uninhibited to speak from the heart. That's what the people most admired about him, As he became more popular, more noticed and consequently more sought after by corporations and behind the scene ruling powers that be, (AIPAC and the military industrial complex) he acquiesced into the typical pandering politician afraid to take a stand on any issue unpopoular to his new, heavy duty supporters, chasing away his original, grass roots supporters that so loved him and wanted him desperately to succeed. He has abandoned us for the money and the power that corrupts our nation. We are left hoping for the hope he once gave us. We don't care to end the war "responsibly", in 16 months. A war which we started, illegally, under false pretences, with lies. A war which is costing us trillions, lasting longer than WW2. Like the Nazis, we are the bad guys here, Americans, invading another country for its oil resource, subdoing and occupying indefinitely another culture, shamelessly, as if we are right and have the right to do so. We want to end the war. Period. We don't want to encourage our military to make more and different weapons so they can start more wars and kill more people. We don't "need " smaller nuclear weapons. We need to get rid of the ones we have.We want to discourage them and save lives and shame people who think otherwise. We want leadership that stands up to the military and fires all those generals and experts who were in favor of our awful invasion of another, smaller country that had no chance at defending themselves agasinst us. We want to get away from oil and move as quickly as possible to a clean renewable source of energy. We want jobs and free education and healthcare like the rest of the industrialized nations provide. We want Obama to feel strong and confident about these (his) original positions. We want justice for corruption at the top. We want to see Bush impeached for crimes he has so arrogantly admitted to and for other crimes where evidence points so compellingly to his guilt. We do not want or expect to see a corrupt president pardoned in advance of a trial or at any time after a conviction. We want to see a president who is principled and has conviction and who supports and defends our Constitution. by Nick van Nes (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 595 comments [150 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Friday, Aug 29, 2008 at 12:53:49 AM (0+)
|
|
Excellent piece
I think Obama had this down - class issues were the subtext and he turned around the white guy national security issue in a way that can't be ignored. Zinn is excellent. by Michael Collins (130 articles, 20 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 484 comments [42 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Aug 29, 2008 at 1:13:13 AM (0+)
|
Want to post your own comment on this Article? 
|
||||
|
||||||||||||||
Must Read (0) 
Well Said (0) 
News (0) 
Touching (0) 
Funny (0) 
Supported (0) 
Interesting (0) 
Inspiring (0) 
Valuable (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tell a Friend:
|
Copyright © 2002-2009, OpEdNews |
