COMMENTS: 161
Clues Obama Won't Govern Center-Right
Sign up to stay up to date on the latest Election 2008 headlines via email.
Should progressives beware? Has Barack Obama suckered them into supporting a President who will really govern from the "center-right"? The short answer is no.
Since November 4th there has been growing protestation from right wing intellectuals that America is really a "center-right" nation and that Obama's victory does not indicate that the electorate has rejected the "center-right" value frame that has defined American politics for the last thirty years.
This line of argument has now extended to the contention that while Obama may have won the nomination and election with the strong support from the left of the Democratic Party, he really intends to govern from the "center-right." Even the New York Times ran a front-page analysis last Saturday concluding that Obama's recent cabinet choices, "suggest that Mr. Obama is planning to govern from the center-right of his party, surrounding himself with pragmatists rather than ideologues."
Both of these arguments are complete baloney.
Right wing pundits can comfort themselves with the fantasy that America is a "center-right" nation but it just ain't so. In fact, all of the polls show that the November election represented a complete repudiation of right wing Bush-Cheney top-down economics and their Neo-Con foreign policy. Over 80% of voters indicated they wanted fundamental change. The polling shows massive majorities in favor of policies that would guarantee health care for all. It shows overwhelming support for policies that give tax relief to middle income Americans and increase taxes on the wealthy. Polls show complete rejection of neocon notions about "preemptive" war and unilateralism. And Americans strongly favor bold government action to stimulate the economy - not the failed laissez-faire economics that have lead to the current economic meltdown.
The fact is that normal people have supported policies like health care for all and bottom up economics for decades. They've known for years that economic policies that have lowered their incomes and siphoned off all of our growth to the top 2% were not in their interest. Now the market collapse, potential bankruptcy of the country's biggest firms, and obvious failure of Neo-Con foreign policy have finally forced even the country's punditry and
Not only have "center-right" policies proven themselves a complete failure, their intellectual and moral basis has collapsed. How many more bailouts does someone need before he stops believing that the unfettered "free market" will always lead the "private sector" (meaning those who control giant corporations and Wall Street Bankers) to act in the public interest. How many times can corporate CEO's emerge from their private jets with tin cups in Washington before people begin to question the "center-right's" claim that the private sector is inherently more efficient that the public sector. Let's face it, it's getting pretty tough to justify why Wall Street's "masters of the universe" deserve to be paid hundreds of millions of dollars while middle class incomes tank; or why a CEO should make more money before lunch on the first day of the year than his minimum wage worker makes all year long.
Obama ran a campaign that clearly and unequivocally described priorities that will turn American in a fundamentally progressive direction. His cabinet picks indicate that he will surround himself with people who have experience and can competently manage the government. They also indicate his absolute commitment to unifying the country to make change. But they do not in any way diminish the fact that America is demanding -- and Obama intends to enact -- a sweeping progressive program the likes of which we have not seen since the New Deal.
Political consultant, activist and author Mike Lux will publish a book early next year that surveys the history of progressive change in American history. He concludes that progressive changes happen in big batches. Change doesn't happen incrementally. I think of it as the "Drain-O" theory of history. At key points in history the pressure for democratizing, progressive change overwhelms the forces of the status quo. Then, as the pipes are suddenly cleaned out, massive numbers of progressive changes can finally flow. America is about to experience one of those periods. How much we can accomplish, and how long this period lasts will depend on many factors that we don't yet know -- and one that we do. It will depend heavily on our success in continuing to mobilize the millions of Americans who elected Barack Obama into a movement to enact his program.
Finally, writers and pundits who focus on Obama's cabinet picks to show he will govern from the "center right" need to have a look at history. Like Obama, Franklin Roosevelt, John Kennedy and Abraham Lincoln all installed people in their cabinets who they believed to be effective managers who could deliver. They all had their share of outsiders and progressives, but many were old Washington hands. Yet all of these Presidents faced historic challenges that demanded and enabled them to make fundamental change. And all of them were guided by progressive values that were sharply different from those of Bush, Cheney, and Delay. Obama shares and articulates those values more than any political leader since Robert Kennedy died forty years ago.
Barack Obama will not govern from the "center right", but he will govern from the "center". That's not because he is "moving to the center". It's because the center of American politics has changed. It has moved where the American people are. It once again resides in the traditional progressive center that has defined America's promise since Thomas Jefferson penned its founding document over 200 years ago.
Stay up to date with the latest Election 2008 headlines via email
Comments are closed-
Posted by: cardboardurinal on Dec 2, 2008 12:44 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I hope he is right, but I am cynical to the end and see Obama's foreign policy and economic teams as indicative of Obama's intentions.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Yes, the aticle is complete "fluff".
Posted by: -matti
» RE: Yes, the aticle is complete "fluff".
Posted by: left_libertarian
» RE: Yes, the aticle is complete "fluff".
Posted by: Beck
» RE: I am missing...
Posted by: ChicagoPaul
» He's been running for President for two years...
Posted by: Coleman
» RE: I am missing...
Posted by: cardboardurinal
» Yeah, no argument to support the headline at all
Posted by: leafsong1
» Be careful what you wish for
Posted by: 2thepoint
» RE: Be careful what you wish for
Posted by: Pissed Off Woman
» The article is not just fluff, but spinning fluff
Posted by: LeftWright
Comments are closed-
Posted by: AlexLawyer on Dec 2, 2008 12:58 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We can't count on Congress, either. These are mostly the same folks who sat on their hands the past two years.
The only way we'll get progressive policies is by keeping continuous pressure on them.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Wishful Thinking
Posted by: Marina in Paris
» But also, we need original thinking.
Posted by: -matti
» RE: But also, we need original thinking.
Posted by: MyLeftFoot
» Exactly!
Posted by: halg
» at least he's avoiding Groupthink (unlike the Bush administration)
Posted by: Suzon
» You must be very happy with the make-up of the Supreme Court.
Posted by: Coleman
» the analogy
Posted by: Coleman
» RE: Wishful Thinking
Posted by: jooljetkmae
» RE: Wishful Thinking
Posted by: koolwoman
Comments are closed-
Posted by: maxpayne on Dec 2, 2008 1:01 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why the hell did San Francisco overwhelming vote for pro-war PEE LOW SICK over a real progressive/liberal Cindy Sheehan even as San Francisco claims to be very anti-war and does its protesting in obnoxious ways?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Anything's possible. But let's get real.
Posted by: javajoe
» RE: Anything's possible. But let's get real. DemoBots
Posted by: left_libertarian
» RE: Anything's possible. But let's get real. DemoBots
Posted by: maxpayne
» RE: Anything's possible. But let's get real.
Posted by: maxpayne
» RE: Anything's possible. But let's get real.
Posted by: Lauren
» Because seniority means you can bring home the goods for your district, obviously.
Posted by: Scientz
» RE: Anything's possible. But let's get real.
Posted by: sterlingwisdom
Comments are closed-
Posted by: mmckinl on Dec 2, 2008 1:15 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: kepstein7777 on Dec 2, 2008 1:22 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Polls
Posted by: Marina in Paris
» RE: Polls
Posted by: Marina in Paris
» RE: Polls
Posted by: westomoon
» Correction
Posted by: westomoon
Comments are closed-
Posted by: PJT on Dec 2, 2008 1:58 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I get a feeling that a lot of commentators from the left want to simply replace the right wing ideologues with the left wing equivalent. I keep reading about people's priorities: end the war on drugs! Raise the fleet mileage standards to fifty miles a gallon! Withdraw immediately from Iraq!
Thank God now we have a president now who is very bright and also a responsible adult. The problems that this country faces are serious, complicated and deeply rooted in our culture-- that's right-- in our culture. Easy Credit was a way of life. Try living without it and see how you like it. The economy of entire states are founded on farm subsidies. Just try cutting them. Gasoline is the mother's milk of our prosperity. If it goes back up to $5 entire sections of the country will shrivel up and die.
The idea is to get behind Barack, do our jobs as though our futures depended on it, and to hold up the expectation of government that they start doing things competently again. The foundation stone of the new order is respect for human rights. We need to honor our commitments to our friends around the world and to guide them intelligently when we think they are on the wrong path. We need to think deeply and seriously about energy, foreign policy, health care and manufacturing without falling into a mirror image version of what the Bush regime did: putting ideology before good government and advancing one narrow concept of right when there are many plausible and competing versions of what is right.
I have listened to and read Obama and I am very pleased with his approach. I get the impression from reading the left wing blogs that if he would only decriminalize dope and lock Cheney in a cage his presidency will be a success. The world is an extremely complicated and dangerous place and I am happy we have some adult supervision in the White House.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Vague Bullsh@t is NOT the "key".
Posted by: -matti
» RE: Leadership is the key
Posted by: thekid
» RE: Leadership is the key
Posted by: left_libertarian
» RE: Leadership is the key
Posted by: thekid
» RE: Leadership is the key to the Kingdom of Hell
Posted by: left_libertarian
» That would be a start ...
Posted by: gar1948
» RE: Leadership is the key
Posted by: Jerry
» What left are you criticizing?
Posted by: sliver
» Apologist for criminality
Posted by: leafsong1
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Nightstallion on Dec 2, 2008 2:26 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Suzon on Dec 2, 2008 2:36 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obama needs to enlarge the comfort zone of these people (obviously, it's not gonna work with everybody).
Better to choose standard-issue Democrats and progressive policies than progressives unable to promote and implement those policies. (Remember what happened to Hilary with health care?)
Obama will be "the decider" with the power to sack members of his cabinet.
Optimism can be a powerful force for good. Keep an open mind.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Strange bedfellows
Posted by: solrev
» yes, I was using it ironically, solrev--the president IS the administrative "decider'e
Posted by: Suzon
Comments are closed-
Posted by: SkeeterVT1 on Dec 2, 2008 2:46 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's gone to the center all right, but to the moderate center, not the "progressive center." There is no such thing as a "progressive center." That notion is as ludicrous as the so-called "center-right," or "conservatrive center," as I call it.
There are conservatives, moderates and liberals. Moderates outnumber both -- and after nearly 30 years, are at long last reasserting themselves.
(By the way, I think it's high time for "progressives" reclaim the word "liberal," for that is what they truly are and there is nothing wrong with the word, regardless of what the Far Right says. I prefer "liberal" over "progressive" for the simple fact that "progressive" all too often is used to mask the Radical Left, just as "conservative" has long been hijacked by the Radical Right.)
Americans by the millions rejected the Republicans' head-long dive into neo-fascism ("Neoconservative" -- what a euphemism! They're neo-fascists, goddammit! They brought this country dangerously to the brink of Mussolini-style fascism after 9/11 with their total disregard for the Bill of Rights -- particularly the Fourth Amendment -- and for international law in their pursuit of the "War on Terror" and it's high time to call these so-called "neocons" the fascists that they really are!).
But the moderate center is neither "progressive" nor "conservative." It is a little of both. Most moderates -- myself included -- are fiscally conservative and socially liberal.
Nowhere is that more evident than in my home region of New England, whose residents tend to be socially progressive (pro-choice, pro-gay rights, live-and-let-live), but can be rather tight-fisted when it comes to taxes and spending.
My home state of Vermont is the "bluest" state in the country -- the state that pioneered civil unions for gay couples in 2000 -- whose voters went for Obama 61 percent to 37 percent for McCain, yet easily re-elected moderate Republican Governor Jim Douglas to a fourth two-year term, with 55 percent of the vote. Vermont is the only state without a balanced-budget amendment in its state constitution, yet has remained very prudent in its spending throughout most of the state's history.
This common-sense approach to governing in new England is sorely needed in Washington, after eight years of the Bush administration's obscene fiscal irresponsibility. It's going to take Obama's entire tenure in the White House to clean up after Bush's fiscal mess.
After taking a hard-left turn in the 1960s and a hard-right turn in the 1980s, America moved back toward the center in 1992, only to take another hard-right turn in 2000. Now the country is moving firmly back to the center again -- but "progressives" are in for a disappointment of they think that they'll see a wholesale return of the liberalism of the 1960s and 1970s.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: The Center of American Politics is the MODERATE Center, NOT the PROGRESSIVE Center
Posted by: thekid
» RE: The Center of American Politics is the MODERATE Center, NOT the PROGRESSIVE Center
Posted by: ATH
» RE: The Center of American Politics - explain
Posted by: left_libertarian
Comments are closed-
Posted by: SufiLizard on Dec 2, 2008 4:16 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I really, REALLY want to give him the benefit of the doubt, but he's losing me rapidly.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Couldn't Obama pick even one genuine progressive for his cabinet?
Posted by: toro1569
» ...but Obama doesn't pick subcabinet positions
Posted by: gar1948
» Because if you didn't...
Posted by: Coleman
» RE: ...but Obama doesn't pick subcabinet positions
Posted by: thekid
» RE: Couldn't Obama pick even one genuine progressive for his cabinet?
Posted by: Lauren
Comments are closed-
Posted by: DrXyzzy on Dec 2, 2008 4:16 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The very idea that there is a "center" marginalizes progressives, and sees them as extremists, when they simply share fundamental American values. The term "center" suggests there is a "mainstream" where most people are and that there is a single set of views held by that mainstream. That is false.
In contrast...
But worst of all, the DLC has been cowed by the conservatives. They have drunk the conservative Kool-Aid. As Harold Ford intimated in his debate with Markos Moulitsas: To win you have be a hawk on foreign policy, a social conservative on abortion and gay marriage, and not raise taxes. Nonsense.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: there is no center - Lakoff
Posted by: Lauren
» RE: there is no center - Lakoff
Posted by: thekid
Comments are closed-
Posted by: rst2536 on Dec 2, 2008 4:19 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Of ending Bush and Cheney’s reign
Was spot on are now realizing
They might have voted John McCain.
For when Obama was elected
The cabinet that he confected
Was mostly made of neocons
And Democratic woebegones.
Who dreamed Obama walked on water-
The liberals in blushing pink-
Began to feel their dream boat sink;
That he might even prove a rotter
By choosing those to rule the roost
Whom Washington has mass produced.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ATH on Dec 2, 2008 4:35 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What a load.
Our country is far to the left of Obama, and yes, he fed us a line of B.S. just like all politician's do. All change has always come--and always will--only when the people of this country unite and DEMAND that things change.
Get 100 million people marching on Washington, then things might change. Americans have to be willing to die, to put their very lives on the line, to change things around now.
The system is utterly corrupt. Until the FED
is gradually discarded and sound money practice resumed, we are facing a world of the rich and the poor, with nothing between.
Until we remove the control of our money supply from the hands of this highly secretive, un-Constitutional private banking cartel, with the ability to print up pieces of paper and call them money, even though they are backed by nothing, and only get their value from sucking it from the other money in circulation (which devalues ALL the currency, resulting in a weaker dollar. A weaker dollar buys less things, so prices appear to go up in this process we know of as inflation.
Inflation is the hidden tax that the rich use to slowly siphon the wealth of the middle and lower classes off, transfering it to their own pockets.
A gold and silver (we must have both, for gold is a market too easily cornered)backed
currency is not subject to this inflation, because gold and silver have intrinsic value,
unlike paper. Also, the money supply should only be increased in proportion to the goods and services being produced.
The government agrees to this deal (even though The Federal Reserve is not actually a government agency, but a private corporation..truly, a unique and deadly creature) because they constantly need more money.
In order to correct this, we need to demand that the airwaves be used as the public service they're supposed to be, give politician's equal, free coverage, and thus take the money out of political elections.
Then, government, with the help of the people, can gain control of the corporatist State, put neccesary restrictions in place, and without the negative influence of the FED,
the "freed market" will work. But that doesn't mean an agenda of privitazation. There should always be certain services, health coverage being one, that are part of the common wealth
and should be run as a non-profit social service.
There are, of course, other forces to be dealt with as well, namely the oil companies, and the military industrial complex.
But, if we had a unified country, with the best ideas from both sides of the aisle--a fiscally conservative government, with a liberal social agenda. But the money that needs to be cut is in the "defense" deptartment, which is really an "Offense" department used to police the world.
Under a sound, Constitutional money system,
the government would not be able to afford, and wouldn't need to, police the world and sell weapons as our biggest export, because there is a huge job of transforming our energy infrastructure that should be able to employ
the jobs lost in the defense sector.
All the bad things in America take place only because we have a system of just printing paper and using it as money. It's a dead-end course. Once this is fixed, the government will have to start governing Constitutionally when we get rid of the greatest fraud and danger to our democratic republic, or what's left of it, the FED.
The Constitution is the answer and our current way of running the government is the
problem. It can only be fixed by us...in this system, as it is, no one will ever be elected
who does not tow the corporate line; we have to make it so ordinary people can run for office. The rich will never represent the poor when it's the rich who keep them in office.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» And on top of all that is the manipulation of all markets now....
Posted by: Prophit
Comments are closed-
Posted by: thebeerdoctor on Dec 2, 2008 4:52 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That is why "American values", even when put through a neoliberal strainer, is still a murky dangerous broth of hubris.
It is bad enough that big business America markets our baloney to the rest of the world through advertising. And now, even under the said to be more sensible Obama, the military with its war products will continue to grow.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» American values?
Posted by: F-Abdolian
» The Short Answer ...
Posted by: gar1948
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Purple Girl on Dec 2, 2008 4:55 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
They call Dems weak on Defense,Who didn't protect US from Terrorists on 9/11-those who Created them with secret funding throughout the '80's- Bin laden & Saddam. Seems the Repugs not only can't protect US, they have ways to create Enemies who want nothing more than to Attack US. Strng on Defense, You mean like Dr. Frankenstein vs His Monster?
They claim Dems will allow Social anarchy, Yet which group has been allowed, enabled, to dictate social Mores more than the Religious Right. Gays are not trying to make everyone become Homosexuals, Nor are Women trying to abort all pregnancies....But some 'Christian' sects are trying to convert or force every citizen to become THEIR FORM of Christian. In fact the 'We are A Christian Nation' is the antithesis of Our American values. History lesson, it was not just Taxation which caused people to flee their homelands, it was Religious Oppression too.
So when these brainwashed pundits (propagandaists) start spewing their BS I have to wonder, do they actually think they are convincing anyone when the facts prove it is themselves they are talking about? Or are they just so indoctrinated they don't even realize they are lying anymore?
Here's some "Lefty" ideals
All Men are created equal (general term not gender related)
With Inalienable Rights to Life,liberty and the pursuit of happiness (relates to Humans NOT Brick & Mortar)
What profound,scary,Revolutionary concepts those are Ah?
What are the apparent ideologies of the Right..
The Wealthy should control all aspects of the Market (thus not 'Free) and Hoard all Resources which are generated by the majority, Because they are not Worhty or are too Stupid or Immoral to do so themselves (Religious Feudalism).
Frankly I find the Repugs economic, International and social agenda is direct conflict to what this coutnry was founded on.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» All Liberal Men are created equal?
Posted by: theVRWCwhodatesLiberals
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Erin on Dec 2, 2008 4:56 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Oh,no you wouldn't. Thought McCain was the pres-elect, that is.
Posted by: GuitarBill
» Beck, have you ever heard of a guy named Frank Zappa?
Posted by: GuitarBill
» RE:Pudding
Posted by: GrannyBgood
» RE: Pudding - At least you have the adage correct
Posted by: photon's feather
» If it was McCain ...
Posted by: gar1948
» Wow.
Posted by: Scientz
» RE: Not baloney he was clear all along
Posted by: grkjr
» waynep
Posted by: waynep
Comments are closed-
Posted by: 911FalseFlag on Dec 2, 2008 5:17 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obama was groomed by these people in a short period of six years, starting with getting him elected to the U.S. Senate and then his rise to the presidency. There was no need to steal this election by computer fraud and voter suppression since the "powers that be" already had placed "their man" on each party's ticket.
The "powers that be" won this election as soon as they marginalized or more accurately politically assassinated Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul.
go to www.911insidejob.net for many articles and videos. And
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Obama-In Bed with Federal Reserve Bank
Posted by: Erin
Comments are closed-
Posted by: americansheep on Dec 2, 2008 5:31 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Farasien on Dec 2, 2008 5:35 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As I said in another post, new bastard, same as the old bastard.
America was conned. Again. Get ready to bend over for the almighty state.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: I still wonder if success is ever the goal.
Posted by: Lauren
Comments are closed-
Posted by: tarnishedreality on Dec 2, 2008 6:35 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
At least wait till Obama is in office before joining the Right wing pundits in slamming him and his decisions!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» What "Right wing pundits... slamming him and his decisions"?
Posted by: Phred42
» RE: What "Right wing pundits... slamming him and his decisions"?
Posted by: michael098762001
» RE: Stop the Cynicism -- Even the logical cynicism?
Posted by: photon's feather
Comments are closed-
Posted by: blondesprite on Dec 2, 2008 7:08 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
He indicated, very early on and since his first National Democratic Convention speech, that he intended to transcend party doctrines.
He promised unity. He promised to reach across the isle. He very clearly stated he intends to represent those who elected him AND those who voted for McCain.
I cautiously supported him, because Kucinich stepped down and instructed me to do so.
We, as a nation and a party, elected him from a vast number of individual perspectives and a perponderance of individual unmet needs.
With so much projection, within and without the party platforms, it is difficult to see passed them and recall what he actually said and promised.
He is, and will be, doing exactly what he said he would do. The fact that far too many were not paying attention, will not change that.
No drama Obama is and has been a "steady as she goes" campaigner and will be that as President.
The fact that our info-tainment news, blogging, comedy and pundit sectors feed (financially and idelogically) on drama and contoversy, will not change it either.
In the end, my hopes are that he puts the US Constitution back on the table. As noted in the Preamble, our Consitution promoted the general welfare (which, in my opinion, includes single payer universal health care and sharing the wealth) through justice (a single rule of law) for all.
It is my hope, in doing so, he makes clear that no one (including Bush, Cheney, Reid or Pelosi) has ever had the authority to take the rule of law off the table.
It is my hope that he closes Guantanamo, restores Habeas Corpus, Posse Comitatus and Separation of Chruch and State. I hope he re-establishes compliance with the Geneva Conventions and restores the right to petition our government and to freely associate.
In closing, it is my hope that he re-unites us through re-establishing a system of Federal Laws (and regulations) which supersede state laws.
If he makes these few fundamental course corrections, (from the last thirty years of listing far to the right) all the rest may follow.
If he over reaches or over corrects, as the blustering Clintons did (with so-called welfare reform) and as many here posting and pontificating wish he would do, we may see more national division than ever.
If this does happen (as Sarah Palin, Pat Robertson and the rest of the far right hopes he will) our new national hope will, in fact, become a one-term President.
Stop whining, stop supporting those who whine for fun and profit, and start truly paying attention with your own ears and eyes.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» This is a wonderful post
Posted by: westomoon
» RE: This is a wonderful post
Posted by: blondesprite
» What are you going on about?
Posted by: 6399
» RE: What are you going on about?
Posted by: blondesprite
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ayala on Dec 2, 2008 7:23 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Sounds just like Lincoln ...
Posted by: gar1948
» R U kidding? Sounds like LIMBAUGH
Posted by: westomoon
» I think you misunderstood ...
Posted by: mollymorph
» RE: I think you misunderstood ...
Posted by: westomoon
Comments are closed-
Posted by: chlamor on Dec 2, 2008 7:23 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Never mind that Obama voted for a business-friendly “tort reform” bill that rolls back working peoples’ ability to obtain reasonable redress and compensation from misbehaving corporations. Or that Obama claims to oppose the introduction of single-payer national health insurance on the grounds that such a widely supported social-democratic change would lead to employment difficulties for workers in the private insurance industry—at places like Kaiser and Blue Cross Blue Shield.
In an interview with Klein, Obama expressed reservations about a universal health insurance plan recently enacted in Massachusetts, stating his preference for “voluntary” solutions over “government mandates.” The former, he said, is “more consonant with” what he called “the American character”—a position contradicted by regular polling data showing that most Americans support Canadian-style single-payer health insurance.
Never mind that Obama voted to re-authorize the repressive PATRIOT Act. Or that he voted for the appointment of the war criminal Condaleeza Rice to (of all things) Secretary of State.
Never mind that Obama’s famous 2004 Democratic Convention Keynote Address—widely credited for catapulting him to national prominence—expressed numerous reactionary and incorrect notions that make the praise it received from the far right National Review (who called Obama’s oration “simple and powerful”) less than mysterious on close examination. This speech claimed that the U.S. is the ultimate “beacon for freedom and opportunity,” the “only country on earth” where his supposedly “rags to riches” is “even possible.” This despite the fact that the U.S. is actually the most rigidly hierarchical nation in the industrialized world, home to a stultifying corporate plutocracy, persistent and highly racialized poverty, astonishing incarceration rates (also quite racially disparate), and low mobility from lower to upper segments in its steep socioeconomic pyramid.
Never mind Obama’s “mush-mouthed” pronouncements on the illegal, racist, and imperialist invasion and occupation of Iraq. Obama’s handlers and supporters place considerable emphasis on the claim that the junior senator from Illinois has voiced a “consistent position against the war” and (by extension) the Middle East. The assertion has some technical accuracy; Obama has publicly questioned the Bush administration’s case for war since the fall of 2002. But serious scrutiny of his “antiwar position” shows that the supposedly “pragmatic” and “non-ideological” Obama speaks in deferential accord with the doctrine of empire. In Obama’s carefully crafted rhetoric, Operation Iraqi Liberation (OIL) has been a “strategic blunder” on the part of an essentially benevolent nation state. Given his presidential ambitions, it is unthinkable for him to acknowledge the invasion’s status as a great international transgression that is consistent with the United States’ long record of imperial criminality. It is equally unimaginable for him to acknowledge that the war expressed Washington’s drive to deepen its control of strategic petroleum resources—an ambition in direct opposition to the alleged U.S. goals of encouraging Iraqi freedom and exporting democracy.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: popsicle67 on Dec 2, 2008 7:50 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
a counterpart to the old "Reagan Democrats", A republican who has to switch parties and vote for Obama because the Republican party is quite honestly full of delusional people that have no grounding in reality anymore. I also appreciated the fact that he at least knew what the Constitution has written in it and not just wishful "I think it should be there so we'll say it is" thinking of the Monkey's administration. I think we need a total left policy plank to pull us back to where the center should be and stop fooling ourselves that we are even in sight of where the center is.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: tony12000 on Dec 2, 2008 8:21 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: JohnTruth2001 on Dec 2, 2008 8:29 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: avatar_singh on Dec 2, 2008 8:56 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
4 hours 13 mins ago
ITN
* Print Story
The Jean Charles de Menezes inquest jury has been told it cannot consider a verdict of unlawful killing.
==========================
so wiil the bastrd policeman be charged for lwful killing?
so stupid and evil are the ways of britsh court in a police state called britian that itis high time that other govt take matter into hands and bomb britian on the same prestesxt as afagansitan was bombed because taliban refusewd to extradite criminal of bin laden. afterall britian harbours russian criminal bezekshky, anbother chechniyan terrorist andf alos war criminal tony blair who will never be tried farily in britian so britan msut be mo=bombed to submission in order to bring justice-the same law shoudl apply to britian which applies to people of afgansitan and iraq.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» your post is off-topic but I'd like to respond anyway...The definitive statement about the UK
Posted by: Suzon
» RE: your post is off-topic but I'd like to respond anyway...The definitive statement about the UK
Posted by: harryf200
Comments are closed-
Posted by: smendler on Dec 2, 2008 9:12 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
(For example:
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/obama-meet-w-nader.html)
We also need to make it clear to the Democratic Party apparatchiks that neglect of progressives by the Obama White House will only fuel support for the Greens or some other third party that may impact the Congressional races in 2010. It's time for Progressive Democrats to stand up to the Party lreadership and demand a stronger voice - or show that they are willing to split if they can't get access to President Obama's ear.
And even if Obama starts acting more inclusively, we should still be working to make the playing field more level and more amenable to third-party alternatives -- elsewise the Dem leadership will continue to take progressives for granted.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: douglashoyt on Dec 2, 2008 9:30 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This author is delusional.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: avatar_singh on Dec 2, 2008 9:35 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obama’s teammate with shady Russian past December 2, 2008, 1:09
Obama’s teammate with shady Russian past
Members of Obama’s economic task force are already rolling up their sleeves to fight the recession. Among those due to guide America through the financial crisis is Larry Summers, who will be the president's senior financial advisor, and who, as RT found out, comes with quite a controversial past.
There may be some big international stars on Obama’s new dream team, but Larry Summers is no plain professional. Not only has he run the World Bank but he served in the Clinton administration and was president of Harvard. But despite the impressive CV he’s also been a controversial figure both at home and abroad throughout his career.
“I have to say that for someone protecting the interests of the US, he was very efficient. He tried to force a model on us, which turned out to be suicidal for the Russian economy,” says economic expert Sergey Glazyev.
Summers will head the National Economic Council as Obama’s senior financial advisor. He’s known for being a keen advocate of deregulation, a policy he exported to Russia with disastrous results in the late nineties. Some who worked with him conceded he knew what he was doing, but could be blinded by his own convictions.
“There was a little bit of this attitude of ‘we know everything, and you guys don’t know anything’,” recalls Viktor Geraschenko, former Head of Russia’s Central Bank.
A number of his actions as president of Harvard caused controversy, including sexist remarks and a US$ 26-million lawsuit, again involving Russia.
The university and a close friend of Summers’s settled a claim by the US government of a conflict of interest in Russia’s privatisation programme in 1990s, which allowed many to get rich quick.
Sergey Glazyev says Summers’s new appointment could mean more trouble.
“This is an attempt to further maintain an ineffecient financial system that is completely unbalanced, in which the US prints money and finances their spending and the rest of the world pays,” he says.
When news of his appointment became known, the media began remembering the economic policies of the past, but also the scandals that have dogged Summers over the years. His record could prove to be a burden to the new administration, whose central promise was one of change and renewal.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE--How anglosaxons work to destroy others economy
Posted by: avatar_singh
» English race?
Posted by: leafsong1
» no-english race is not aryan in fact it is districtly non aryan
Posted by: avatar_singh
» RE: no-english race is not aryan in fact it is distinctly non aryan
Posted by: avatar_singh
» RE: no-english race is not aryan in fact it is distinctly non aryan
Posted by: avatar_singh
» RE: "no-english race is not aryan in fact it is districtly non aryan""
Posted by: harryf200
» RE: "English race?" Yeah! Well said.leafsong1! Marks you 5.
Posted by: harryf200
Comments are closed-
Posted by: DaBear on Dec 2, 2008 10:21 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Not one piece of hard evidence to support a claim. Kinda makes you wonder if that's the level of faith-based Leftie nonsense that got us here to begin with.
Doh! There I go being a barbituate again... JDFU!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» pass the barbituates!
Posted by: Coleman
Comments are closed-
Posted by: oregoncharles on Dec 2, 2008 10:24 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Let me quibble with the claim that O. is picking "effective managers:"
Has Hillary Clinton EVER held a managerial post? Her campaign was much less well-managed than his: that's probably the biggest managerial job she's had.
Ergo: not chosen for her managerial skills. Instead, she was obviously chosen to concentrate clout in the Admin.: not a bad idea, in itself.
Here we see once again the odd idea that it doesn't really matter who the President's top people are: they're just "managers." But in reality, these are some of the most important decisions he'll make. No president is all that hands-on: it's a huge job, and all about delegating. These are his gate-keepers (Rahm Emmanuel?), his main sources of information, and the people making day-to-day POLICY decisions.
They're a legitimate harbinger, and denying that is just wishful thinking.
Is there a change in the public's attitudes? Probably. Mostly, there's a rejection of 8 yrs. of disaster. The public support for progressive ideas that the author mentions has always been there, but not reflected even in Democratic Party actions for a long time.
If you're trying to apply political pressure, the best place is probably the House of Representatives: they face re-election in 2 years, and a lot of them are new.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: willymack on Dec 2, 2008 10:42 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: gunboat diplomat on Dec 2, 2008 10:45 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here's Obama pledging to unilaterally reopen NAFTA:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ownOXa0JASA
Where's the left-wing media coverage?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» "Left-wing media"?
Posted by: westomoon
» RE: "Left-wing media"?
Posted by: Shey
Comments are closed-
Posted by: 6399 on Dec 2, 2008 11:05 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's starting to sound like Bush Echo Chamber Redux in here. I'll refrain from speculating on his true political leanings until he has signed off on his first bill or two. However, I will not hold back when it's apparent that he has already made some potentially catastrophic decisions in Emmanuel and Gates. Geithner and Summers don't exactly inspire either. And what can we say about Rubin's influence?
::chills run down his spine::
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Apologize for what?
Posted by: Scientz
» RE: Apologize for what?
Posted by: 6399
» I don't see any rebuttal in there . . .
Posted by: Scientz
» "talk to me in 18 months when Iraq is awash in sectarian blood once again."
Posted by: harryf200
» RE: Apologize for what?
Posted by: cardboardurinal
» Um, no. Emanuel's political future . . .
Posted by: Scientz
» The "shrill cacophony" is in the comments!
Posted by: westomoon
» So invested in (defending) Obama that you can't see the forest for the trees . . .
Posted by: 6399
» Hello?
Posted by: westomoon
Comments are closed-
Posted by: mom'z the word on Dec 2, 2008 11:21 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is a big mess. I do believe we can really turn this around if we had the intent and will to do it. How long did it take to pass the Patriot's Act or bail out corporate America? A minute and it was done. Our problem is we are not looking for real change that would make a difference but rather looking to maintaining or recovering status quo. That is going to be the killer.
Universal health care is the right thing to do. So why are we not doing it? There are countries with Universal health care and it is working just fine. They do not have insurance companies or drug companies they have to support and maintain. We know what the problem is we just do not have the will and intent to make the changes that are necessary. Because of our will and intent to maintain a broken system rather than make the proper and necessary changes for the common good that will guarantee failure.
This is not rocket science. The right thing to do is simple once you realize that it is not about the bottom line but about providing quality excellent health care to every single person. You know the kind of health care members of Congress have. No questions asked just walk into any doctors office or hospital and get the care and attention you need. And why can't we as American citizens do that? Because Congress is selfish? Greedy? Ignorant? Willful? All of the above? Changing means changing ones attitude first and then everything else follows. Do we really need Drug companies running our health care system? I don't think so. So the first step to changing this mess is changing our attitude about what we need and what we want. We need health care. We don't need drug companies. We need peace. We don't need war. We need air. We don't need pollution. So, now what?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Actions speak louder than words
Posted by: leafsong1
Comments are closed-
Posted by: hoorah on Dec 2, 2008 11:35 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For those of you who have and will later discover that president-elect Barak Obama fooled you through his "sweet talk and rhetoric". It's nice to have dreams and hopes for a better tomorrow. Do yourselves a favor by looking at the facts of life, etc. and by basing your dreams and hopes on "reality." By taking this approach, your hopes and dreams may stand a better chance of becoming a reality. Like I said on a post on this site on 11/5/08. "Welcome To More Of The Same." I don't have to wait and see that it will be business as usual after 1/20/09. The same front-cover and under-cover politicos will continue to interfere, rule and reign over every aspect of our lives. It doesn't matter that you are a Pro-U.S. Constitutional, law-abiding citizen. Many government politicians appear to be content disregarding or abolishing the U.S.C. Check out Patriot Acts I and II. You better think again if you think those laws are going to be repealed. If anything. They will be expanded upon. Wake up America. We are being destroyed and divided by our own fellow countrymen. Their idea of freedom, liberty and justice may be anti-constitutional and contrary to yours.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» UNITED STATES BREAK-UP PREDICTED PART 1
Posted by: hoorah
» RE: UNITED STATES BREAK-UP PREDICTED PART 2
Posted by: hoorah
» RE: UNITED STATES BREAK-UP PREDICTED PART 3
Posted by: hoorah
» RE: SAD: SOME PEOPLE NEVER LEARN
Posted by: animalleaderisgreat
Comments are closed-
Posted by: westomoon on Dec 2, 2008 12:14 PM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
People do not have to be categorized into brand names, like "conservative" or "progressive", and in fact those labels don't fit so well any more. I don't like being pelted with feces if my opinions on, say, immigration differ from your definition of "progressive", even if my every other stance is "perfect" by your definition.
Most of the discussion here is based on a meta-analysis, a series of sorts into "progressive" vs , I guess, "neocon". ( I mean, if people are willing to declare Obama the same as McCain, that means they are doing the trick they learned from the neocons, right? "He's not following my playbook, so that means he is its polar opposite.") There has been a bipolar judgment of each of these Cabinet and staff appointments -- progressive or regressive, no other choices -- and then all those forced-choice, true-false judgments are piled up into one big meta-judgment on Obama, where one wrong answer puts him in the "enemy" category.
Have any of you folks even looked at his published policy documents? Nate Silver did an interesting analysis of them recently -- he characterises Obama's policies as very "progressive" on some issues, "center-left" on others, and "center-right" on still others. How does that boil down into a simple "with us"/"agin us" label?
Come on, people, one of the main beauties of the non-neocon world is that it is diverse and nuanced. People are "progressive" or "conservative" issue by issue, and a lot of issues should be exempt -- like whether we have Constitutional government and the rule of law, or how far we are willing to bankrupt the country, or whether we are willing to continue an insane pair of wars. Those are common-sense issues. It's only the need of the neocons to see every single issue in terms of partisan politics, or the "culture wars" they created, that has polarized what should be neutral, universal issues.
For godsake, do you want to be just like the people who screamed "socialism" at the prospect of the return of the graduated income tax? I know you're accustomed to it, but really -- try looking at reality in the same million colors your computer uses. This whole hot/cold, clean/dirry, black/white polarization things the neocons have trained you to leads to just the kind of government we've seen for the past 10 years -- crude, stupid, and doctrinaire.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: The neocons have trained us well
Posted by: Shey
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Smiff on Dec 2, 2008 12:59 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You are tasked with cleaning up after 8 years of Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld-et al.
Your country is fighting two overt wars and who knows how many covert ones. You have many powerful, often fundamentalist faith-driven ideologues and war profiteers who are pushing you to the precipice of even more wars.
Your country maintains well-known torture camps such as Gitmo in Cuba and who knows how many hidden ones elsewhere.
You are charged with finding a way of re-constituting a melted down national and global economy.
Much of your populace is up to its ears in the detritus of debt, unemployment, lack of health care, domestic spying....
Your country has never been more unpopular abroad.
Many of your people are demanding change, change, change. 'My change!!'. 'No, my change!!'. 'No, mine!!'.
So where do you start?
Seems to me, (an Aussie currently reading Obama's 'Dreams From My Father'), that at the very least, you would start slowly, giving yourself time to find your feet.
You would make sure that at the very least, you had sufficient experience in your team to ensure that things don't get worse while you are trying to find a way to make them get better.
In your first four-year term, you would do things cautiously but effectively enough so as to start the process of change without spooking the horses.
You would try to ensure that your first four years gives you a mandate to continue and consolidate the benefits of change in your final four-year term.
You would be looking to lay the foundations for real, permanent change, beyond your term as President.
Big ask, eh?
Barack, give it your best shot.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: If you had just been handed the job of President of the US...
Posted by: photon's feather
Comments are closed-
Posted by: brian hayes on Dec 2, 2008 2:23 PM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: starvinmarvy on Dec 2, 2008 2:34 PM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I will go out on that fragile limb and explain in a short "synopsis" why we ...as a "nation"...
as a "country".....as a "people of the U.S.A."..
are being played like idiots!!!
We have an entrenched power base controlled by another country.A country that controls what we as a people of the USA SEE,and HEAR.They control the media. We "HEAR/READ" what they wish us to hear/read.
This "Power Base" actually TELLS the people who supposedly run our country what they wish us to do! They DICTATE to our so called "Leaders" what they want and what they EXPECT!
These people are not from OUR LAND! These People have only one agenda and that is total control!And unfortunately we as a people continue to "fall" for the "mis-information"!
Until our "so-called" leaders REJECT the wishes of this other country ...the same ol same ol will prevail.....the so called LEADERS of a NEW Direction...will also be REJECTED as "false hope"!!
This country is Israel. When will we as a people stand up for real change? Perhaps when our "clergy" start spouting the root of all evil?????
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: newsound on Dec 2, 2008 3:10 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Is that all Americans do?
Just like the auto industry, Americans ignored blatant, obvious signs of trouble and are now putting all their eggs in one basket for a man who's not even president yet.
Here's a reality check for you:
Things are going to get a lot worse before they get even a little close to where the U.S. was in the 90's. That's right . . . the 90's. Think about that . . . while other, more civilized and smarter world powers move on to a new millennium, Americans will STILL be stuck in the oil-based, industrialized past.
The blame is on the American taxpayer for being apathetic, uninvolved and living in denial. So, don't start analysing and criticizing already . . . you've got a hell of a long way to go.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Whining is easier than action
Posted by: westomoon
Comments are closed-
Posted by: adp3d on Dec 2, 2008 9:00 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» CLEARLY AN OXYMORON. IF I'M WRONG I WILL APOLOGIZE. Its been my experience
Posted by: Raymond Emerson
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Raymond Emerson on Dec 2, 2008 11:27 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is up to somebody else to solve this. All of my representatives are already bought by big business. They are honest republicans. They intend to stay bought.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Raymond Emerson on Dec 2, 2008 11:46 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That is what they are planning to do with health insurance. You do the guessing about whether they have congress bought or not. You know your guess is as good as mine.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» MAYBE BHO WON'T GOVERN
Posted by: reelman
Comments are closed-
Posted by: reelman on Dec 6, 2008 4:59 PM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There are so many angles to this that disqualify Obama, yet he continues to thwart the Constitution.
He was not born in the U.S. or he would have simply revealed it by now. In fact, they attempted to comply by submitting a forged birth certificate or COLB in June, so obviously this is no misguided attempt on his part to assert a claim that he doesn't have to produce a birth certificate to prove his eligability. Or he wouldn't have tried to do it in June!!!
Then, with his father being a subject of the British crown and his mother not being of legal age to claim her citizenship in order to pass it on to him and his father was, he takes on his father's citizenship.
Even if his mother was of age, he would still be of dual citizenship, which is exactly what the Founding Fathers were against.
Then there is the fact that he was actually adopted by his step father, an Indonesian, after his biological father died. His name was even changed to Barry Soetoro.
His father, Soetoro, claimed in his divorce papers he had two children - Barry and Maya. So, how did he get back into the country after becoming a citizen of Indonesia? Is he an illegal alien on top of everything? Is this the second time he entered the country illegally? Was the first time four days after his birth?
Inconscient, it may be the electoral college, or the secretaries of state where he appeared on the ballot who are responsible for determining his eligibility. That's why the secretaries of state were sued in some of these cases. Actually, there may not be any set rules on proving the candidate is a natural-born citizen because it was always on the HONOR System, a GENTLEMAN's agreement. Apparently, the Founders thought Americans wouldn't go against their own interests and elect somone who was neither Honorable or a Gentleman. But that was long before Barack Hussein Obama, a man who cares more for his personal ambitions than the welfare of the country.
LUCIANNE.COM POST 12.6.08
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Very silly indeed
Posted by: westomoon
Comments are closed-
Posted by: sonofloud on Dec 17, 2008 11:07 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
He supported Lieberman's retention of his chairmanship in spite of the fact that Lieberman campaigned for the republicans.
I don't know if that's center-right but it sure as hell isn't center-left.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: cardboardurinal on Dec 2, 2008 12:44 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I hope he is right, but I am cynical to the end and see Obama's foreign policy and economic teams as indicative of Obama's intentions.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Yes, the aticle is complete "fluff".
Posted by: -matti
» RE: Yes, the aticle is complete "fluff".
Posted by: left_libertarian
» RE: Yes, the aticle is complete "fluff".
Posted by: Beck
» RE: I am missing...
Posted by: ChicagoPaul
» He's been running for President for two years...
Posted by: Coleman
» RE: I am missing...
Posted by: cardboardurinal
» Yeah, no argument to support the headline at all
Posted by: leafsong1
» Be careful what you wish for
Posted by: 2thepoint
» RE: Be careful what you wish for
Posted by: Pissed Off Woman
» The article is not just fluff, but spinning fluff
Posted by: LeftWright
Comments are closed-
Posted by: AlexLawyer on Dec 2, 2008 12:58 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We can't count on Congress, either. These are mostly the same folks who sat on their hands the past two years.
The only way we'll get progressive policies is by keeping continuous pressure on them.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Wishful Thinking
Posted by: Marina in Paris
» But also, we need original thinking.
Posted by: -matti
» RE: But also, we need original thinking.
Posted by: MyLeftFoot
» Exactly!
Posted by: halg
» at least he's avoiding Groupthink (unlike the Bush administration)
Posted by: Suzon
» You must be very happy with the make-up of the Supreme Court.
Posted by: Coleman
» the analogy
Posted by: Coleman
» RE: Wishful Thinking
Posted by: jooljetkmae
» RE: Wishful Thinking
Posted by: koolwoman
Comments are closed-
Posted by: maxpayne on Dec 2, 2008 1:01 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why the hell did San Francisco overwhelming vote for pro-war PEE LOW SICK over a real progressive/liberal Cindy Sheehan even as San Francisco claims to be very anti-war and does its protesting in obnoxious ways?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Anything's possible. But let's get real.
Posted by: javajoe
» RE: Anything's possible. But let's get real. DemoBots
Posted by: left_libertarian
» RE: Anything's possible. But let's get real. DemoBots
Posted by: maxpayne
» RE: Anything's possible. But let's get real.
Posted by: maxpayne
» RE: Anything's possible. But let's get real.
Posted by: Lauren
» Because seniority means you can bring home the goods for your district, obviously.
Posted by: Scientz
» RE: Anything's possible. But let's get real.
Posted by: sterlingwisdom
Comments are closed-
Posted by: mmckinl on Dec 2, 2008 1:15 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: kepstein7777 on Dec 2, 2008 1:22 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Polls
Posted by: Marina in Paris
» RE: Polls
Posted by: Marina in Paris
» RE: Polls
Posted by: westomoon
» Correction
Posted by: westomoon
Comments are closed-
Posted by: PJT on Dec 2, 2008 1:58 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I get a feeling that a lot of commentators from the left want to simply replace the right wing ideologues with the left wing equivalent. I keep reading about people's priorities: end the war on drugs! Raise the fleet mileage standards to fifty miles a gallon! Withdraw immediately from Iraq!
Thank God now we have a president now who is very bright and also a responsible adult. The problems that this country faces are serious, complicated and deeply rooted in our culture-- that's right-- in our culture. Easy Credit was a way of life. Try living without it and see how you like it. The economy of entire states are founded on farm subsidies. Just try cutting them. Gasoline is the mother's milk of our prosperity. If it goes back up to $5 entire sections of the country will shrivel up and die.
The idea is to get behind Barack, do our jobs as though our futures depended on it, and to hold up the expectation of government that they start doing things competently again. The foundation stone of the new order is respect for human rights. We need to honor our commitments to our friends around the world and to guide them intelligently when we think they are on the wrong path. We need to think deeply and seriously about energy, foreign policy, health care and manufacturing without falling into a mirror image version of what the Bush regime did: putting ideology before good government and advancing one narrow concept of right when there are many plausible and competing versions of what is right.
I have listened to and read Obama and I am very pleased with his approach. I get the impression from reading the left wing blogs that if he would only decriminalize dope and lock Cheney in a cage his presidency will be a success. The world is an extremely complicated and dangerous place and I am happy we have some adult supervision in the White House.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Vague Bullsh@t is NOT the "key".
Posted by: -matti
» RE: Leadership is the key
Posted by: thekid
» RE: Leadership is the key
Posted by: left_libertarian
» RE: Leadership is the key
Posted by: thekid
» RE: Leadership is the key to the Kingdom of Hell
Posted by: left_libertarian
» That would be a start ...
Posted by: gar1948
» RE: Leadership is the key
Posted by: Jerry
» What left are you criticizing?
Posted by: sliver
» Apologist for criminality
Posted by: leafsong1
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Nightstallion on Dec 2, 2008 2:26 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Suzon on Dec 2, 2008 2:36 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obama needs to enlarge the comfort zone of these people (obviously, it's not gonna work with everybody).
Better to choose standard-issue Democrats and progressive policies than progressives unable to promote and implement those policies. (Remember what happened to Hilary with health care?)
Obama will be "the decider" with the power to sack members of his cabinet.
Optimism can be a powerful force for good. Keep an open mind.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Strange bedfellows
Posted by: solrev
» yes, I was using it ironically, solrev--the president IS the administrative "decider'e
Posted by: Suzon
Comments are closed-
Posted by: SkeeterVT1 on Dec 2, 2008 2:46 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's gone to the center all right, but to the moderate center, not the "progressive center." There is no such thing as a "progressive center." That notion is as ludicrous as the so-called "center-right," or "conservatrive center," as I call it.
There are conservatives, moderates and liberals. Moderates outnumber both -- and after nearly 30 years, are at long last reasserting themselves.
(By the way, I think it's high time for "progressives" reclaim the word "liberal," for that is what they truly are and there is nothing wrong with the word, regardless of what the Far Right says. I prefer "liberal" over "progressive" for the simple fact that "progressive" all too often is used to mask the Radical Left, just as "conservative" has long been hijacked by the Radical Right.)
Americans by the millions rejected the Republicans' head-long dive into neo-fascism ("Neoconservative" -- what a euphemism! They're neo-fascists, goddammit! They brought this country dangerously to the brink of Mussolini-style fascism after 9/11 with their total disregard for the Bill of Rights -- particularly the Fourth Amendment -- and for international law in their pursuit of the "War on Terror" and it's high time to call these so-called "neocons" the fascists that they really are!).
But the moderate center is neither "progressive" nor "conservative." It is a little of both. Most moderates -- myself included -- are fiscally conservative and socially liberal.
Nowhere is that more evident than in my home region of New England, whose residents tend to be socially progressive (pro-choice, pro-gay rights, live-and-let-live), but can be rather tight-fisted when it comes to taxes and spending.
My home state of Vermont is the "bluest" state in the country -- the state that pioneered civil unions for gay couples in 2000 -- whose voters went for Obama 61 percent to 37 percent for McCain, yet easily re-elected moderate Republican Governor Jim Douglas to a fourth two-year term, with 55 percent of the vote. Vermont is the only state without a balanced-budget amendment in its state constitution, yet has remained very prudent in its spending throughout most of the state's history.
This common-sense approach to governing in new England is sorely needed in Washington, after eight years of the Bush administration's obscene fiscal irresponsibility. It's going to take Obama's entire tenure in the White House to clean up after Bush's fiscal mess.
After taking a hard-left turn in the 1960s and a hard-right turn in the 1980s, America moved back toward the center in 1992, only to take another hard-right turn in 2000. Now the country is moving firmly back to the center again -- but "progressives" are in for a disappointment of they think that they'll see a wholesale return of the liberalism of the 1960s and 1970s.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: The Center of American Politics is the MODERATE Center, NOT the PROGRESSIVE Center
Posted by: thekid
» RE: The Center of American Politics is the MODERATE Center, NOT the PROGRESSIVE Center
Posted by: ATH
» RE: The Center of American Politics - explain
Posted by: left_libertarian
Comments are closed-
Posted by: SufiLizard on Dec 2, 2008 4:16 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I really, REALLY want to give him the benefit of the doubt, but he's losing me rapidly.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Couldn't Obama pick even one genuine progressive for his cabinet?
Posted by: toro1569
» ...but Obama doesn't pick subcabinet positions
Posted by: gar1948
» Because if you didn't...
Posted by: Coleman
» RE: ...but Obama doesn't pick subcabinet positions
Posted by: thekid
» RE: Couldn't Obama pick even one genuine progressive for his cabinet?
Posted by: Lauren
Comments are closed-
Posted by: DrXyzzy on Dec 2, 2008 4:16 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The very idea that there is a "center" marginalizes progressives, and sees them as extremists, when they simply share fundamental American values. The term "center" suggests there is a "mainstream" where most people are and that there is a single set of views held by that mainstream. That is false.
In contrast...
But worst of all, the DLC has been cowed by the conservatives. They have drunk the conservative Kool-Aid. As Harold Ford intimated in his debate with Markos Moulitsas: To win you have be a hawk on foreign policy, a social conservative on abortion and gay marriage, and not raise taxes. Nonsense.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: there is no center - Lakoff
Posted by: Lauren
» RE: there is no center - Lakoff
Posted by: thekid
Comments are closed-
Posted by: rst2536 on Dec 2, 2008 4:19 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Of ending Bush and Cheney’s reign
Was spot on are now realizing
They might have voted John McCain.
For when Obama was elected
The cabinet that he confected
Was mostly made of neocons
And Democratic woebegones.
Who dreamed Obama walked on water-
The liberals in blushing pink-
Began to feel their dream boat sink;
That he might even prove a rotter
By choosing those to rule the roost
Whom Washington has mass produced.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ATH on Dec 2, 2008 4:35 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What a load.
Our country is far to the left of Obama, and yes, he fed us a line of B.S. just like all politician's do. All change has always come--and always will--only when the people of this country unite and DEMAND that things change.
Get 100 million people marching on Washington, then things might change. Americans have to be willing to die, to put their very lives on the line, to change things around now.
The system is utterly corrupt. Until the FED
is gradually discarded and sound money practice resumed, we are facing a world of the rich and the poor, with nothing between.
Until we remove the control of our money supply from the hands of this highly secretive, un-Constitutional private banking cartel, with the ability to print up pieces of paper and call them money, even though they are backed by nothing, and only get their value from sucking it from the other money in circulation (which devalues ALL the currency, resulting in a weaker dollar. A weaker dollar buys less things, so prices appear to go up in this process we know of as inflation.
Inflation is the hidden tax that the rich use to slowly siphon the wealth of the middle and lower classes off, transfering it to their own pockets.
A gold and silver (we must have both, for gold is a market too easily cornered)backed
currency is not subject to this inflation, because gold and silver have intrinsic value,
unlike paper. Also, the money supply should only be increased in proportion to the goods and services being produced.
The government agrees to this deal (even though The Federal Reserve is not actually a government agency, but a private corporation..truly, a unique and deadly creature) because they constantly need more money.
In order to correct this, we need to demand that the airwaves be used as the public service they're supposed to be, give politician's equal, free coverage, and thus take the money out of political elections.
Then, government, with the help of the people, can gain control of the corporatist State, put neccesary restrictions in place, and without the negative influence of the FED,
the "freed market" will work. But that doesn't mean an agenda of privitazation. There should always be certain services, health coverage being one, that are part of the common wealth
and should be run as a non-profit social service.
There are, of course, other forces to be dealt with as well, namely the oil companies, and the military industrial complex.
But, if we had a unified country, with the best ideas from both sides of the aisle--a fiscally conservative government, with a liberal social agenda. But the money that needs to be cut is in the "defense" deptartment, which is really an "Offense" department used to police the world.
Under a sound, Constitutional money system,
the government would not be able to afford, and wouldn't need to, police the world and sell weapons as our biggest export, because there is a huge job of transforming our energy infrastructure that should be able to employ
the jobs lost in the defense sector.
All the bad things in America take place only because we have a system of just printing paper and using it as money. It's a dead-end course. Once this is fixed, the government will have to start governing Constitutionally when we get rid of the greatest fraud and danger to our democratic republic, or what's left of it, the FED.
The Constitution is the answer and our current way of running the government is the
problem. It can only be fixed by us...in this system, as it is, no one will ever be elected
who does not tow the corporate line; we have to make it so ordinary people can run for office. The rich will never represent the poor when it's the rich who keep them in office.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» And on top of all that is the manipulation of all markets now....
Posted by: Prophit
Comments are closed-
Posted by: thebeerdoctor on Dec 2, 2008 4:52 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That is why "American values", even when put through a neoliberal strainer, is still a murky dangerous broth of hubris.
It is bad enough that big business America markets our baloney to the rest of the world through advertising. And now, even under the said to be more sensible Obama, the military with its war products will continue to grow.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» American values?
Posted by: F-Abdolian
» The Short Answer ...
Posted by: gar1948
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Purple Girl on Dec 2, 2008 4:55 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
They call Dems weak on Defense,Who didn't protect US from Terrorists on 9/11-those who Created them with secret funding throughout the '80's- Bin laden & Saddam. Seems the Repugs not only can't protect US, they have ways to create Enemies who want nothing more than to Attack US. Strng on Defense, You mean like Dr. Frankenstein vs His Monster?
They claim Dems will allow Social anarchy, Yet which group has been allowed, enabled, to dictate social Mores more than the Religious Right. Gays are not trying to make everyone become Homosexuals, Nor are Women trying to abort all pregnancies....But some 'Christian' sects are trying to convert or force every citizen to become THEIR FORM of Christian. In fact the 'We are A Christian Nation' is the antithesis of Our American values. History lesson, it was not just Taxation which caused people to flee their homelands, it was Religious Oppression too.
So when these brainwashed pundits (propagandaists) start spewing their BS I have to wonder, do they actually think they are convincing anyone when the facts prove it is themselves they are talking about? Or are they just so indoctrinated they don't even realize they are lying anymore?
Here's some "Lefty" ideals
All Men are created equal (general term not gender related)
With Inalienable Rights to Life,liberty and the pursuit of happiness (relates to Humans NOT Brick & Mortar)
What profound,scary,Revolutionary concepts those are Ah?
What are the apparent ideologies of the Right..
The Wealthy should control all aspects of the Market (thus not 'Free) and Hoard all Resources which are generated by the majority, Because they are not Worhty or are too Stupid or Immoral to do so themselves (Religious Feudalism).
Frankly I find the Repugs economic, International and social agenda is direct conflict to what this coutnry was founded on.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» All Liberal Men are created equal?
Posted by: theVRWCwhodatesLiberals
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Erin on Dec 2, 2008 4:56 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Oh,no you wouldn't. Thought McCain was the pres-elect, that is.
Posted by: GuitarBill
» Beck, have you ever heard of a guy named Frank Zappa?
Posted by: GuitarBill
» RE:Pudding
Posted by: GrannyBgood
» RE: Pudding - At least you have the adage correct
Posted by: photon's feather
» If it was McCain ...
Posted by: gar1948
» Wow.
Posted by: Scientz
» RE: Not baloney he was clear all along
Posted by: grkjr
» waynep
Posted by: waynep
Comments are closed-
Posted by: 911FalseFlag on Dec 2, 2008 5:17 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obama was groomed by these people in a short period of six years, starting with getting him elected to the U.S. Senate and then his rise to the presidency. There was no need to steal this election by computer fraud and voter suppression since the "powers that be" already had placed "their man" on each party's ticket.
The "powers that be" won this election as soon as they marginalized or more accurately politically assassinated Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul.
go to www.911insidejob.net for many articles and videos. And
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Obama-In Bed with Federal Reserve Bank
Posted by: Erin
Comments are closed-
Posted by: americansheep on Dec 2, 2008 5:31 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Farasien on Dec 2, 2008 5:35 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As I said in another post, new bastard, same as the old bastard.
America was conned. Again. Get ready to bend over for the almighty state.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: I still wonder if success is ever the goal.
Posted by: Lauren
Comments are closed-
Posted by: tarnishedreality on Dec 2, 2008 6:35 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
At least wait till Obama is in office before joining the Right wing pundits in slamming him and his decisions!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» What "Right wing pundits... slamming him and his decisions"?
Posted by: Phred42
» RE: What "Right wing pundits... slamming him and his decisions"?
Posted by: michael098762001
» RE: Stop the Cynicism -- Even the logical cynicism?
Posted by: photon's feather
Comments are closed-
Posted by: blondesprite on Dec 2, 2008 7:08 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
He indicated, very early on and since his first National Democratic Convention speech, that he intended to transcend party doctrines.
He promised unity. He promised to reach across the isle. He very clearly stated he intends to represent those who elected him AND those who voted for McCain.
I cautiously supported him, because Kucinich stepped down and instructed me to do so.
We, as a nation and a party, elected him from a vast number of individual perspectives and a perponderance of individual unmet needs.
With so much projection, within and without the party platforms, it is difficult to see passed them and recall what he actually said and promised.
He is, and will be, doing exactly what he said he would do. The fact that far too many were not paying attention, will not change that.
No drama Obama is and has been a "steady as she goes" campaigner and will be that as President.
The fact that our info-tainment news, blogging, comedy and pundit sectors feed (financially and idelogically) on drama and contoversy, will not change it either.
In the end, my hopes are that he puts the US Constitution back on the table. As noted in the Preamble, our Consitution promoted the general welfare (which, in my opinion, includes single payer universal health care and sharing the wealth) through justice (a single rule of law) for all.
It is my hope, in doing so, he makes clear that no one (including Bush, Cheney, Reid or Pelosi) has ever had the authority to take the rule of law off the table.
It is my hope that he closes Guantanamo, restores Habeas Corpus, Posse Comitatus and Separation of Chruch and State. I hope he re-establishes compliance with the Geneva Conventions and restores the right to petition our government and to freely associate.
In closing, it is my hope that he re-unites us through re-establishing a system of Federal Laws (and regulations) which supersede state laws.
If he makes these few fundamental course corrections, (from the last thirty years of listing far to the right) all the rest may follow.
If he over reaches or over corrects, as the blustering Clintons did (with so-called welfare reform) and as many here posting and pontificating wish he would do, we may see more national division than ever.
If this does happen (as Sarah Palin, Pat Robertson and the rest of the far right hopes he will) our new national hope will, in fact, become a one-term President.
Stop whining, stop supporting those who whine for fun and profit, and start truly paying attention with your own ears and eyes.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» This is a wonderful post
Posted by: westomoon
» RE: This is a wonderful post
Posted by: blondesprite
» What are you going on about?
Posted by: 6399
» RE: What are you going on about?
Posted by: blondesprite
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ayala on Dec 2, 2008 7:23 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Sounds just like Lincoln ...
Posted by: gar1948
» R U kidding? Sounds like LIMBAUGH
Posted by: westomoon
» I think you misunderstood ...
Posted by: mollymorph
» RE: I think you misunderstood ...
Posted by: westomoon
Comments are closed-
Posted by: chlamor on Dec 2, 2008 7:23 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Never mind that Obama voted for a business-friendly “tort reform” bill that rolls back working peoples’ ability to obtain reasonable redress and compensation from misbehaving corporations. Or that Obama claims to oppose the introduction of single-payer national health insurance on the grounds that such a widely supported social-democratic change would lead to employment difficulties for workers in the private insurance industry—at places like Kaiser and Blue Cross Blue Shield.
In an interview with Klein, Obama expressed reservations about a universal health insurance plan recently enacted in Massachusetts, stating his preference for “voluntary” solutions over “government mandates.” The former, he said, is “more consonant with” what he called “the American character”—a position contradicted by regular polling data showing that most Americans support Canadian-style single-payer health insurance.
Never mind that Obama voted to re-authorize the repressive PATRIOT Act. Or that he voted for the appointment of the war criminal Condaleeza Rice to (of all things) Secretary of State.
Never mind that Obama’s famous 2004 Democratic Convention Keynote Address—widely credited for catapulting him to national prominence—expressed numerous reactionary and incorrect notions that make the praise it received from the far right National Review (who called Obama’s oration “simple and powerful”) less than mysterious on close examination. This speech claimed that the U.S. is the ultimate “beacon for freedom and opportunity,” the “only country on earth” where his supposedly “rags to riches” is “even possible.” This despite the fact that the U.S. is actually the most rigidly hierarchical nation in the industrialized world, home to a stultifying corporate plutocracy, persistent and highly racialized poverty, astonishing incarceration rates (also quite racially disparate), and low mobility from lower to upper segments in its steep socioeconomic pyramid.
Never mind Obama’s “mush-mouthed” pronouncements on the illegal, racist, and imperialist invasion and occupation of Iraq. Obama’s handlers and supporters place considerable emphasis on the claim that the junior senator from Illinois has voiced a “consistent position against the war” and (by extension) the Middle East. The assertion has some technical accuracy; Obama has publicly questioned the Bush administration’s case for war since the fall of 2002. But serious scrutiny of his “antiwar position” shows that the supposedly “pragmatic” and “non-ideological” Obama speaks in deferential accord with the doctrine of empire. In Obama’s carefully crafted rhetoric, Operation Iraqi Liberation (OIL) has been a “strategic blunder” on the part of an essentially benevolent nation state. Given his presidential ambitions, it is unthinkable for him to acknowledge the invasion’s status as a great international transgression that is consistent with the United States’ long record of imperial criminality. It is equally unimaginable for him to acknowledge that the war expressed Washington’s drive to deepen its control of strategic petroleum resources—an ambition in direct opposition to the alleged U.S. goals of encouraging Iraqi freedom and exporting democracy.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: popsicle67 on Dec 2, 2008 7:50 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
a counterpart to the old "Reagan Democrats", A republican who has to switch parties and vote for Obama because the Republican party is quite honestly full of delusional people that have no grounding in reality anymore. I also appreciated the fact that he at least knew what the Constitution has written in it and not just wishful "I think it should be there so we'll say it is" thinking of the Monkey's administration. I think we need a total left policy plank to pull us back to where the center should be and stop fooling ourselves that we are even in sight of where the center is.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: tony12000 on Dec 2, 2008 8:21 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: JohnTruth2001 on Dec 2, 2008 8:29 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: avatar_singh on Dec 2, 2008 8:56 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
4 hours 13 mins ago
ITN
* Print Story
The Jean Charles de Menezes inquest jury has been told it cannot consider a verdict of unlawful killing.
==========================
so wiil the bastrd policeman be charged for lwful killing?
so stupid and evil are the ways of britsh court in a police state called britian that itis high time that other govt take matter into hands and bomb britian on the same prestesxt as afagansitan was bombed because taliban refusewd to extradite criminal of bin laden. afterall britian harbours russian criminal bezekshky, anbother chechniyan terrorist andf alos war criminal tony blair who will never be tried farily in britian so britan msut be mo=bombed to submission in order to bring justice-the same law shoudl apply to britian which applies to people of afgansitan and iraq.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» your post is off-topic but I'd like to respond anyway...The definitive statement about the UK
Posted by: Suzon
» RE: your post is off-topic but I'd like to respond anyway...The definitive statement about the UK
Posted by: harryf200
Comments are closed-
Posted by: smendler on Dec 2, 2008 9:12 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
(For example:
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/obama-meet-w-nader.html)
We also need to make it clear to the Democratic Party apparatchiks that neglect of progressives by the Obama White House will only fuel support for the Greens or some other third party that may impact the Congressional races in 2010. It's time for Progressive Democrats to stand up to the Party lreadership and demand a stronger voice - or show that they are willing to split if they can't get access to President Obama's ear.
And even if Obama starts acting more inclusively, we should still be working to make the playing field more level and more amenable to third-party alternatives -- elsewise the Dem leadership will continue to take progressives for granted.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: douglashoyt on Dec 2, 2008 9:30 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This author is delusional.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: avatar_singh on Dec 2, 2008 9:35 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obama’s teammate with shady Russian past December 2, 2008, 1:09
Obama’s teammate with shady Russian past
Members of Obama’s economic task force are already rolling up their sleeves to fight the recession. Among those due to guide America through the financial crisis is Larry Summers, who will be the president's senior financial advisor, and who, as RT found out, comes with quite a controversial past.
There may be some big international stars on Obama’s new dream team, but Larry Summers is no plain professional. Not only has he run the World Bank but he served in the Clinton administration and was president of Harvard. But despite the impressive CV he’s also been a controversial figure both at home and abroad throughout his career.
“I have to say that for someone protecting the interests of the US, he was very efficient. He tried to force a model on us, which turned out to be suicidal for the Russian economy,” says economic expert Sergey Glazyev.
Summers will head the National Economic Council as Obama’s senior financial advisor. He’s known for being a keen advocate of deregulation, a policy he exported to Russia with disastrous results in the late nineties. Some who worked with him conceded he knew what he was doing, but could be blinded by his own convictions.
“There was a little bit of this attitude of ‘we know everything, and you guys don’t know anything’,” recalls Viktor Geraschenko, former Head of Russia’s Central Bank.
A number of his actions as president of Harvard caused controversy, including sexist remarks and a US$ 26-million lawsuit, again involving Russia.
The university and a close friend of Summers’s settled a claim by the US government of a conflict of interest in Russia’s privatisation programme in 1990s, which allowed many to get rich quick.
Sergey Glazyev says Summers’s new appointment could mean more trouble.
“This is an attempt to further maintain an ineffecient financial system that is completely unbalanced, in which the US prints money and finances their spending and the rest of the world pays,” he says.
When news of his appointment became known, the media began remembering the economic policies of the past, but also the scandals that have dogged Summers over the years. His record could prove to be a burden to the new administration, whose central promise was one of change and renewal.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE--How anglosaxons work to destroy others economy
Posted by: avatar_singh
» English race?
Posted by: leafsong1
» no-english race is not aryan in fact it is districtly non aryan
Posted by: avatar_singh
» RE: no-english race is not aryan in fact it is distinctly non aryan
Posted by: avatar_singh
» RE: no-english race is not aryan in fact it is distinctly non aryan
Posted by: avatar_singh
» RE: "no-english race is not aryan in fact it is districtly non aryan""
Posted by: harryf200
» RE: "English race?" Yeah! Well said.leafsong1! Marks you 5.
Posted by: harryf200
Comments are closed-
Posted by: DaBear on Dec 2, 2008 10:21 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Not one piece of hard evidence to support a claim. Kinda makes you wonder if that's the level of faith-based Leftie nonsense that got us here to begin with.
Doh! There I go being a barbituate again... JDFU!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» pass the barbituates!
Posted by: Coleman
Comments are closed-
Posted by: oregoncharles on Dec 2, 2008 10:24 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Let me quibble with the claim that O. is picking "effective managers:"
Has Hillary Clinton EVER held a managerial post? Her campaign was much less well-managed than his: that's probably the biggest managerial job she's had.
Ergo: not chosen for her managerial skills. Instead, she was obviously chosen to concentrate clout in the Admin.: not a bad idea, in itself.
Here we see once again the odd idea that it doesn't really matter who the President's top people are: they're just "managers." But in reality, these are some of the most important decisions he'll make. No president is all that hands-on: it's a huge job, and all about delegating. These are his gate-keepers (Rahm Emmanuel?), his main sources of information, and the people making day-to-day POLICY decisions.
They're a legitimate harbinger, and denying that is just wishful thinking.
Is there a change in the public's attitudes? Probably. Mostly, there's a rejection of 8 yrs. of disaster. The public support for progressive ideas that the author mentions has always been there, but not reflected even in Democratic Party actions for a long time.
If you're trying to apply political pressure, the best place is probably the House of Representatives: they face re-election in 2 years, and a lot of them are new.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: willymack on Dec 2, 2008 10:42 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: gunboat diplomat on Dec 2, 2008 10:45 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here's Obama pledging to unilaterally reopen NAFTA:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ownOXa0JASA
Where's the left-wing media coverage?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» "Left-wing media"?
Posted by: westomoon
» RE: "Left-wing media"?
Posted by: Shey
Comments are closed-
Posted by: 6399 on Dec 2, 2008 11:05 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's starting to sound like Bush Echo Chamber Redux in here. I'll refrain from speculating on his true political leanings until he has signed off on his first bill or two. However, I will not hold back when it's apparent that he has already made some potentially catastrophic decisions in Emmanuel and Gates. Geithner and Summers don't exactly inspire either. And what can we say about Rubin's influence?
::chills run down his spine::
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Apologize for what?
Posted by: Scientz
» RE: Apologize for what?
Posted by: 6399
» I don't see any rebuttal in there . . .
Posted by: Scientz
» "talk to me in 18 months when Iraq is awash in sectarian blood once again."
Posted by: harryf200
» RE: Apologize for what?
Posted by: cardboardurinal
» Um, no. Emanuel's political future . . .
Posted by: Scientz
» The "shrill cacophony" is in the comments!
Posted by: westomoon
» So invested in (defending) Obama that you can't see the forest for the trees . . .
Posted by: 6399
» Hello?
Posted by: westomoon
Comments are closed-
Posted by: mom'z the word on Dec 2, 2008 11:21 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is a big mess. I do believe we can really turn this around if we had the intent and will to do it. How long did it take to pass the Patriot's Act or bail out corporate America? A minute and it was done. Our problem is we are not looking for real change that would make a difference but rather looking to maintaining or recovering status quo. That is going to be the killer.
Universal health care is the right thing to do. So why are we not doing it? There are countries with Universal health care and it is working just fine. They do not have insurance companies or drug companies they have to support and maintain. We know what the problem is we just do not have the will and intent to make the changes that are necessary. Because of our will and intent to maintain a broken system rather than make the proper and necessary changes for the common good that will guarantee failure.
This is not rocket science. The right thing to do is simple once you realize that it is not about the bottom line but about providing quality excellent health care to every single person. You know the kind of health care members of Congress have. No questions asked just walk into any doctors office or hospital and get the care and attention you need. And why can't we as American citizens do that? Because Congress is selfish? Greedy? Ignorant? Willful? All of the above? Changing means changing ones attitude first and then everything else follows. Do we really need Drug companies running our health care system? I don't think so. So the first step to changing this mess is changing our attitude about what we need and what we want. We need health care. We don't need drug companies. We need peace. We don't need war. We need air. We don't need pollution. So, now what?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Actions speak louder than words
Posted by: leafsong1
Comments are closed-
Posted by: hoorah on Dec 2, 2008 11:35 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For those of you who have and will later discover that president-elect Barak Obama fooled you through his "sweet talk and rhetoric". It's nice to have dreams and hopes for a better tomorrow. Do yourselves a favor by looking at the facts of life, etc. and by basing your dreams and hopes on "reality." By taking this approach, your hopes and dreams may stand a better chance of becoming a reality. Like I said on a post on this site on 11/5/08. "Welcome To More Of The Same." I don't have to wait and see that it will be business as usual after 1/20/09. The same front-cover and under-cover politicos will continue to interfere, rule and reign over every aspect of our lives. It doesn't matter that you are a Pro-U.S. Constitutional, law-abiding citizen. Many government politicians appear to be content disregarding or abolishing the U.S.C. Check out Patriot Acts I and II. You better think again if you think those laws are going to be repealed. If anything. They will be expanded upon. Wake up America. We are being destroyed and divided by our own fellow countrymen. Their idea of freedom, liberty and justice may be anti-constitutional and contrary to yours.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» UNITED STATES BREAK-UP PREDICTED PART 1
Posted by: hoorah
» RE: UNITED STATES BREAK-UP PREDICTED PART 2
Posted by: hoorah
» RE: UNITED STATES BREAK-UP PREDICTED PART 3
Posted by: hoorah
» RE: SAD: SOME PEOPLE NEVER LEARN
Posted by: animalleaderisgreat
Comments are closed-
Posted by: westomoon on Dec 2, 2008 12:14 PM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
People do not have to be categorized into brand names, like "conservative" or "progressive", and in fact those labels don't fit so well any more. I don't like being pelted with feces if my opinions on, say, immigration differ from your definition of "progressive", even if my every other stance is "perfect" by your definition.
Most of the discussion here is based on a meta-analysis, a series of sorts into "progressive" vs , I guess, "neocon". ( I mean, if people are willing to declare Obama the same as McCain, that means they are doing the trick they learned from the neocons, right? "He's not following my playbook, so that means he is its polar opposite.") There has been a bipolar judgment of each of these Cabinet and staff appointments -- progressive or regressive, no other choices -- and then all those forced-choice, true-false judgments are piled up into one big meta-judgment on Obama, where one wrong answer puts him in the "enemy" category.
Have any of you folks even looked at his published policy documents? Nate Silver did an interesting analysis of them recently -- he characterises Obama's policies as very "progressive" on some issues, "center-left" on others, and "center-right" on still others. How does that boil down into a simple "with us"/"agin us" label?
Come on, people, one of the main beauties of the non-neocon world is that it is diverse and nuanced. People are "progressive" or "conservative" issue by issue, and a lot of issues should be exempt -- like whether we have Constitutional government and the rule of law, or how far we are willing to bankrupt the country, or whether we are willing to continue an insane pair of wars. Those are common-sense issues. It's only the need of the neocons to see every single issue in terms of partisan politics, or the "culture wars" they created, that has polarized what should be neutral, universal issues.
For godsake, do you want to be just like the people who screamed "socialism" at the prospect of the return of the graduated income tax? I know you're accustomed to it, but really -- try looking at reality in the same million colors your computer uses. This whole hot/cold, clean/dirry, black/white polarization things the neocons have trained you to leads to just the kind of government we've seen for the past 10 years -- crude, stupid, and doctrinaire.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: The neocons have trained us well
Posted by: Shey
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Smiff on Dec 2, 2008 12:59 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You are tasked with cleaning up after 8 years of Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld-et al.
Your country is fighting two overt wars and who knows how many covert ones. You have many powerful, often fundamentalist faith-driven ideologues and war profiteers who are pushing you to the precipice of even more wars.
Your country maintains well-known torture camps such as Gitmo in Cuba and who knows how many hidden ones elsewhere.
You are charged with finding a way of re-constituting a melted down national and global economy.
Much of your populace is up to its ears in the detritus of debt, unemployment, lack of health care, domestic spying....
Your country has never been more unpopular abroad.
Many of your people are demanding change, change, change. 'My change!!'. 'No, my change!!'. 'No, mine!!'.
So where do you start?
Seems to me, (an Aussie currently reading Obama's 'Dreams From My Father'), that at the very least, you would start slowly, giving yourself time to find your feet.
You would make sure that at the very least, you had sufficient experience in your team to ensure that things don't get worse while you are trying to find a way to make them get better.
In your first four-year term, you would do things cautiously but effectively enough so as to start the process of change without spooking the horses.
You would try to ensure that your first four years gives you a mandate to continue and consolidate the benefits of change in your final four-year term.
You would be looking to lay the foundations for real, permanent change, beyond your term as President.
Big ask, eh?
Barack, give it your best shot.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: If you had just been handed the job of President of the US...
Posted by: photon's feather
Comments are closed-
Posted by: brian hayes on Dec 2, 2008 2:23 PM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: starvinmarvy on Dec 2, 2008 2:34 PM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I will go out on that fragile limb and explain in a short "synopsis" why we ...as a "nation"...
as a "country".....as a "people of the U.S.A."..
are being played like idiots!!!
We have an entrenched power base controlled by another country.A country that controls what we as a people of the USA SEE,and HEAR.They control the media. We "HEAR/READ" what they wish us to hear/read.
This "Power Base" actually TELLS the people who supposedly run our country what they wish us to do! They DICTATE to our so called "Leaders" what they want and what they EXPECT!
These people are not from OUR LAND! These People have only one agenda and that is total control!And unfortunately we as a people continue to "fall" for the "mis-information"!
Until our "so-called" leaders REJECT the wishes of this other country ...the same ol same ol will prevail.....the so called LEADERS of a NEW Direction...will also be REJECTED as "false hope"!!
This country is Israel. When will we as a people stand up for real change? Perhaps when our "clergy" start spouting the root of all evil?????
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: newsound on Dec 2, 2008 3:10 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Is that all Americans do?
Just like the auto industry, Americans ignored blatant, obvious signs of trouble and are now putting all their eggs in one basket for a man who's not even president yet.
Here's a reality check for you:
Things are going to get a lot worse before they get even a little close to where the U.S. was in the 90's. That's right . . . the 90's. Think about that . . . while other, more civilized and smarter world powers move on to a new millennium, Americans will STILL be stuck in the oil-based, industrialized past.
The blame is on the American taxpayer for being apathetic, uninvolved and living in denial. So, don't start analysing and criticizing already . . . you've got a hell of a long way to go.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Whining is easier than action
Posted by: westomoon
Comments are closed-
Posted by: adp3d on Dec 2, 2008 9:00 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» CLEARLY AN OXYMORON. IF I'M WRONG I WILL APOLOGIZE. Its been my experience
Posted by: Raymond Emerson
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Raymond Emerson on Dec 2, 2008 11:27 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is up to somebody else to solve this. All of my representatives are already bought by big business. They are honest republicans. They intend to stay bought.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Raymond Emerson on Dec 2, 2008 11:46 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That is what they are planning to do with health insurance. You do the guessing about whether they have congress bought or not. You know your guess is as good as mine.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» MAYBE BHO WON'T GOVERN
Posted by: reelman
Comments are closed-
Posted by: reelman on Dec 6, 2008 4:59 PM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There are so many angles to this that disqualify Obama, yet he continues to thwart the Constitution.
He was not born in the U.S. or he would have simply revealed it by now. In fact, they attempted to comply by submitting a forged birth certificate or COLB in June, so obviously this is no misguided attempt on his part to assert a claim that he doesn't have to produce a birth certificate to prove his eligability. Or he wouldn't have tried to do it in June!!!
Then, with his father being a subject of the British crown and his mother not being of legal age to claim her citizenship in order to pass it on to him and his father was, he takes on his father's citizenship.
Even if his mother was of age, he would still be of dual citizenship, which is exactly what the Founding Fathers were against.
Then there is the fact that he was actually adopted by his step father, an Indonesian, after his biological father died. His name was even changed to Barry Soetoro.
His father, Soetoro, claimed in his divorce papers he had two children - Barry and Maya. So, how did he get back into the country after becoming a citizen of Indonesia? Is he an illegal alien on top of everything? Is this the second time he entered the country illegally? Was the first time four days after his birth?
Inconscient, it may be the electoral college, or the secretaries of state where he appeared on the ballot who are responsible for determining his eligibility. That's why the secretaries of state were sued in some of these cases. Actually, there may not be any set rules on proving the candidate is a natural-born citizen because it was always on the HONOR System, a GENTLEMAN's agreement. Apparently, the Founders thought Americans wouldn't go against their own interests and elect somone who was neither Honorable or a Gentleman. But that was long before Barack Hussein Obama, a man who cares more for his personal ambitions than the welfare of the country.
LUCIANNE.COM POST 12.6.08
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Very silly indeed
Posted by: westomoon
Comments are closed-
Posted by: sonofloud on Dec 17, 2008 11:07 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
He supported Lieberman's retention of his chairmanship in spite of the fact that Lieberman campaigned for the republicans.
I don't know if that's center-right but it sure as hell isn't center-left.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
MoveOn Launches Campaign for Bold Progressive Reforms as the Obama Era Begins
Obama's Promise of Change Comes Wrapped in Red, White and Blue
Reactions to Obama's Historic Moment From Around the Globe




