AlterNet / By Steven Rosenfeld
comments_imageCOMMENTS: 261

'Yes, We Can' -- The Magic Behind Obama's Message

Unlike other candidates who say what they will do for you, Obama says "Yes, we can" and pledges to work together.
January 8, 2008  |  
 
 
LIKE THIS ARTICLE ?
Join our mailing list:

Sign up to stay up to date on the latest headlines via email.

 
 
Advertisement
 
There is a simple -- but profound -- reason why Barack Obama appears headed for the Democratic nomination, and it comes down to three simple words: I, we and you.

Have you seen Obama lately? Or heard him speak? Or listened carefully? I was one of the nine million Americans who saw Saturday's debates on ABC-TV. I was with a friend who facilitates meetings as a management consultant and we immediately saw and heard why Obama is different from the rest of the Democratic (and Republican) pack.

Basically, the other candidates are all saying, "I will do this," "I will do that," "I will be there in this way for you," as they recite the fine print of issues to show what they would do as president. Indeed, most of the horserace coverage from this and other debates is on the points scored by the candidates as they joust on this wavelength.

Obama, on the other hand, is not emphasizing the "I" pronoun. He is all about we and you. "We can do this." "We can do that." "If we come together, we can achieve ..." The former grass-roots organizer is making his candidacy inclusive. Obama is asking people to join him, implying that he will listen, hear them and include them in solutions that rely on the best in them and in society, not the worst.

The "I will" versus "We can" stance is not a minor distinction.

On Saturday, Hillary Clinton and Obama even debated this point on ABC.

"Words are not actions," Clinton said, "and as beautifully presented and passionately felt as they are, they are not action. You know, what we've got to do is translate talk into action and feeling into reality."

A few minutes later, Obama responded.

"The truth is actually words do inspire," he said. "Words do help people get involved. Words do help members of Congress get into power so that they can be part of a coalition to deliver healthcare reform, to deliver a bold energy policy. Don't discount that power, because when the American people are determined that something is going to happen, then it happens. And if they are disaffected and cynical and fearful and told that it can't be done, then it doesn't. I'm running for president because I want to tell them, 'Yes, we can.' And that's why I think they're responding in such large numbers."

Obama's campaign can be summed up in the power of three words, "Yes, we can."

The candidates who engage in first-person boasts or the pundits who nit-pick the issues and attenuate the horserace do not appreciate this distinction. Have you noticed how often in recent days pundits have written that Obama is different, special and unique in American politics? But they cannot say why.

"This is new. America has never seen anything like the Barack Obama phenomenon," wrote New York Times columnist Bob Herbert on Jan. 5. "Shake hands with tomorrow. It's here."

Obama's campaign may be a phenomenon, but it is not a mystique. Nor it is not unique.

George Lakoff, who has written many books on political communication, psychology and how both parties frame and win elections, said Obama's use of "we" and "you" -- and his gift for making people feel good and that they are being heard -- makes all the difference.

"He's saying 'we' and 'you.' It's a huge difference," Lakoff said. "It fits in with various other things."

"Obama has talked about an empathy deficit," he said, first speaking to the inclusive aspect of his campaign. "He understands what it means to connect to people, to listen to them, to understand what their needs and concerns are and that government should be responsive ... Hillary is all about policy. It is top-down. It is a rationalist model. It is 'we who understand and know policy know best.' It is telling people what is best for them."

John Edwards, Lakoff said, has this same approach.

"Edwards says, 'I will fight for you.' He is talking like a lawyer. He is being a lawyer," he said. "But he is falling into the same trap as Hillary."

Lakoff said he personally knows Clinton well enough to say that candidate Clinton is not the real Hillary. She is so afraid of falling into female stereotypes -- witness Monday's coverage of a near-teary moment in a New Hampshire diner -- Lakoff said, that "she has no idea how to be herself on the stump."

In contrast, Lakoff said Obama is one of the most honest people he has ever met -- a comment I have heard from others working on his campaign -- and that is a part of his appeal. "It is not a mystique," he said. "It is real. Charisma is real. It is tangible."

Ironically, while the Republican candidates have been falling over themselves to compare themselves to Ronald Reagan, the one candidate who seems to be making Americans feel good about themselves with an assured, easy manner and clear values -- as Reagan did -- is a Democrat in the race, Obama.

"Remember what Reagan was about," Lakoff said, agreeing with the comparison. "It's why people vote for candidates. Obama gets it."

"In the brain, there are two pathways for emotions," Lakoff said, offering an explanation for Obama's charisma. "There is a negative one for fear and anger. And there is a positive one. What Obama does and Reagan did was activate the positive pathways. George Bush activates the negative ones. Obama is activating the positive ones. He makes people feel physically good just by looking at him. The guy looks upbeat. He looks relaxed. You look at him and you feel upbeat, you feel relaxed. He feels empowered. You feel empowered. That's charisma."

Of course, unlike the Republican's great communicator, Obama's instincts and values are liberal, because to be liberal is to be inclusive and to believe that government had a role in fostering greater goods. Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and Bill Richardson also are politically liberal, but their manner of speaking is "I will." It is not "Yes, we can."
  • 1
View as a single page
 
Steven Rosenfeld is a senior fellow at Alternet.org and co-author of What Happened in Ohio: A Documentary Record of Theft and Fraud in the 2004 Election, with Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman (The New Press, 2006).
Email
Print
Share
Post on reddit
Post on stumbleupon
Post on facebook
Post on digg
Post on twitter
Post on delicious
LIKED THIS ARTICLE? JOIN OUR EMAIL LIST
Stay up to date with the latest AlterNet headlines via email
See more stories tagged with: obama, election 2008, message

READ COMMENTS
LOGIN OR REGISTER TO POST A COMMENT
 

Comments are closed-

Ask Senator Obama
[Report this comment]
Posted by: NoPCZone on Jan 8, 2008 12:33 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why did you vote for the NeoCon Bankruptcy Bill?

His answer should be very telling as it was, and is, indefensible. Money just doesn't talk- it screams. Watch you wallet, he's a DLC-type in all new clothes.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Ask Senator Obama Posted by: bthespoon
» RE: Ask Senator Obama Posted by: C-Dawg Blake
» what does change mean?? Posted by: particle61
» RE: what does change mean?? Posted by: bthespoon
» RE: no problem... Posted by: particle61
» Blah, blah, bla Posted by: jmooney
» RE: Ask Senator Obama Posted by: davescott
» RE: Ask Senator Obama Posted by: newtype_alpha
» Blah, blah, blah Posted by: jmooney
» RE: Ask Senator Obama Posted by: peacefullaim

Comments are closed-

Campaigning and governing are two different beasts.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Sojourner on Jan 8, 2008 1:05 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Everybody knows that. And why would anyone want to elect a person who is only a good campaigner? When elections are treated as beauty contests, which Americans invented and cannot get out of our system, then we have talent shows and swim suit competitions.

But beauty queens don't govern. They don't have the power to go to war and to decide who lives and who dies.

Yes, it is true that American voters have become so accustomed to salesmen that a good pitch nails us everytime. The comparison of Obama with Reagan, offered here as a positive lesson, turns me off.

Reagan broke the law when in office bordering on impeachable offenses far beyond Clinton. But his phoniness was so practiced, being the complete actor he was, we all got duped. If that is what Obama has to offer, no "we" and "you" will move this nation forward. We need someone who can govern.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Time to ask Obama some questions
[Report this comment]
Posted by: bodo on Jan 8, 2008 1:25 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The polls make it look like Obama is on course to bitchslap Hillary in the NH primary. If this happens, Hillary’s campaign will go into freefall, and she’ll have to go into full-time character assasination mode. Should be interesting.

America doesn’t want a neo-con Repulican as President. This means that if Hillary is TKOed in the New Hampshire primary, then Obama, (or possibly Edwards) will most likely be the next President of the USA.

So before his campaign momentum builds to unstopable force levels, I would suggest that NOW is the time for non-comatose Americans to start asking him the relevant questions.

Personally, I would most like to know the answers to the following:

1. Would you, Mr. Obama, as President, consider using the power of the pardon to pardon any Bush administration officials convicted under your Presidency, a la Gerald Ford?
2. Would you actively oppose a second investigation into 9-11?
3. Would you work to repeal the Military Comissions Act?
4. Please explain your support for the PATRIOT Act
5. Explain the term “State’s secrets”

Those are the questions I would most like answered, because the bare minimum we need from a new President is an undoing of the most serious damages wrought by the Bush administration, and jail time for any officials who are convicted of high crimes and misdemeanors. Anything short of that, and the Bush legacy will stand. Which means that even if a President like Obama doesn’t do anything rash, he’ll still leave us with a nation on the brink of dictatorship when he leaves office. This is my biggest fear about Obama; not that he’ll be a tyrannt, but that he won’t shut the door on tyranny that G.W. Bush has pried wide open. So let’s ask him.

-bacchus

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» His tax policy Posted by: bthespoon
» RE: Time to ask Obama some questions Posted by: peacefullaim

Comments are closed-

He Can Do It
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Tom Degan on Jan 8, 2008 1:36 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Do you remember the song from the 1960s, The Impossible Dream?

This is my quest,
to follow that star,
No matter how hopeless,
no matter how far
To fight for the right,
without question or pause
To be willing to march into hell
for a Heavenly cause
And I know if I only be true
to this glorious quest
Than my heart will lie peaceful and calm
when I'm laid to my rest

It was originally sung by the late Richard Kiley in the Broadway musical Man of La Mancha. It was a beautiful little tune that no one even remembers anymore - so jaded has our culture become. It was also the unofficial theme song of Robert F. Kennedy's ill-fated 1968 presidential campaign.

It might very well be the theme of Barack Obama's candidacy. This is not to imply that his dream of calling the White House "home" is an impossible dream, it's just that, given this country's sad history with respect to race, he does have somewhat of an uphill battle.

More than anyone else running today, his campaign may indeed be called a "glorious quest". God keep him safe.

Tom Degan
Goshen, NT
Making History In Iowa

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: He Can Do It-Not Posted by: NoPCZone
» RE: He Can Do It--BUNK! Posted by: militaryhater
» RE: He Can Do It--BUNK! Posted by: izquerdista
» RE: He Can Do It Posted by: 1984NOW!!!

Comments are closed-

Yes, But
[Report this comment]
Posted by: BlackbirdHighway on Jan 8, 2008 1:56 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Nice talk is great and all, but what is going to happen when the swiftboaters attack? Demos are better off with someone who is a really tough SOB, and will fight back vigorously.

Politics is not a walk through the garden. Look at the last couple elections and the way Gore and Kerry got torn to shreds. Running for president these days is more like being in a knife fight against a gang of street thugs. If he wins the nomination, I hope Obama is a lot tougher than he seems.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Stop attacking Michael Moore Posted by: PeaceLove

Comments are closed-

OBAMA for FASCIST CORPORATE CRIME
[Report this comment]
Posted by: LookOut on Jan 8, 2008 2:17 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
“There is a simple -- but profound -- reason why Barack Obama appears headed for the Democratic nomination, and it comes down to three simple words: I, we and you.”

Profound? I think not.

Let me rephrase for some connection to reality with 3 simple words: Fascist Corporate Power .

Obama is the latest strawman for criminal blood money empire with its endless, bogus protection racket “war on terror” that he supports (voting record) without reservation to the tune of dead Americans, mass genocide at Iraqi and a shredded Bill of Rights / constitution.

Of course he talks about “change” and wraps himself in the flag as all politicians have done since before ancient Rome. And of course this CFR performer is anything but an outsider to the status quo.

Whoever buys this act has zero knowledge of history outside what a monopoly MSM and cooked “education” establishment has drilled into them.

The “I we and you” and “Yes we can” leads nowhere but the politics of deception. It is merely about the latest pump-up and rah-rah brainwash campaign for the already gullible.

In sum, all politicians since JFK have been wholly owned actors for a fiat machine that betrays human life at the cost of doing monopoly business. A business that has no connection to free markets and even less with democracy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

He's For Real
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Joecheck on Jan 8, 2008 3:52 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Rosenfeld and Lakeoff are right in their analysis of Barack Obama's communication strength. I am an older white guy from Hyde Park in Chicago and met Obama in 1996 at the start of his political officeholding days. He is a left liberal, scores well on the usual liberal ratings. But he is not perfect. He is honest and the same way all the time.
This is not an act.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» No - He's Not "For Real"... Posted by: LookOut

Comments are closed-

Interesting analysis
[Report this comment]
Posted by: kepstein7777 on Jan 8, 2008 3:56 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I agree that the "we" approach is one of many things that sets Obama apart from candidates with more substance, stronger ideological positions, etc.

Kucinich is a perfect example. He may hold a lot of positions I agree with, but he is so full of himself that I can't stand to watch him sometimes.

Obama's charisma comes across even better in interviews and debates than in his glittering speeches. He has a way of sounding clear and decisive, yet easygoing and humble. And he's great at dodging questions without looking like he's dodging them.

I'm not so sure about the comparison to Reagan. He was more of a father figure than a team leader. That distinction could hurt Obama in a general election, because Republicans appeal more to our religious and authoritarian tendencies, especially in Red states.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Interesting analysis Posted by: PJAW
» RE: Interesting analysis Posted by: Basenjis
» RE: Interesting analysis Posted by: Lauren
» Vote for substance over style Posted by: GarrisonPayneLeonard38H

Comments are closed-

The Race Based Americon Idol Election
[Report this comment]
Posted by: KAEL on Jan 8, 2008 4:10 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You make the point that Obama's fans are being mesmerized by rhetoric. In a representative government, it should not be seen as a wrong move to use the word I. He will be in the Oval Office; we won't. I'm sure avoiding I will be convenient in two years when the failed idol will blame his problems on everyone but himself.

I feel like we're in a time warp and the US Presidency has just been staged as an episode of American Idol. To be terribly un-PC, do you think for a moment that America would be having this conversation if Clinton were African American and Obama not? Right minded but unthinking collective sympathy got us Israel, and now it will get us Obama.

The next generation has woken up. About time. They are sleep walking right now. The rest of us will come back to the conversation in four years when the fans and their idol have fully awakened to history.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Save school or save lives?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: anothername on Jan 8, 2008 4:40 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Wasn’t it the decade of the 1980's that was being called the “me” decade? This is the group of people under 30 who have been flocking to Obama, according to the media. Yes, make me feel good and happy.

On one of the threads yesterday I posted an observation late in the day. I looked at the entrance polls results from surveys conducted for the National Election Pool (e.g., ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN). Republicans chose their candidates based on sharing the values (43%) and candidate saying what he believes (33%). Democrats choose their candidates based on desire for change (51%). Only 19% of Democrats cast their support based on whether the candidate cares about them. In other words, the Democrats don’t care whether the change is going to make their lives better; they just want some undefined change.

I was talking to a friend who is a senior citizen and she said Obama’s tactics come straight from Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals. It’s been a while since I read the book and my copy is not yet unpacked from the last downward move, so I can’t add my own opinion to her observation. It is worth noting, however.

Obama is making very good use of his organizing talents. Organizing also includes the need to raise funds for projects, and Obama has done a good job of that, too. The problem with organizations, though, is with whom makes the decisions on what issues will be tackled and what positions will be taken. If the goal is to fix a pothole at an intersection, that is clear cut. But take a look at some of the national groups. The ACLU years ago supported the KKK’s right to have a march; the decision lost the group members and money, but the leaders stood by their decision. Where is an example of this type of character choice in Obama’s past?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Save school or save lives? Posted by: anothername
» Mandating purchase of insurance Posted by: bthespoon
» RE: Save school or save lives? Posted by: Basenjis
» RE: Save school or save lives? Posted by: polyquat50

Comments are closed-

Profound message? Nonsense.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: davescott on Jan 8, 2008 4:40 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"There is a simple -- but profound -- reason why Barack Obama appears headed for the Democratic nomination.." Well, I agree that it's simple: he's a young, atractive, articulate African-American, and many Dem primary voters find that combination appealing. Obama's "message" is often pablum. His promise to "end the politics of polarization" is right out of Bush's 2000 claim "I'm a uniter, not a divider" and it's about as convincing. The GOP has had leaders like Tom DeLay and Bush -- if you aren't polarized by these people, you've had a lobotomy. Obama's health care plan is inferior to those of Clintion and Edwards, both of whom have the courage to admit private insurance only works if coverage is mandatory. If Joe Biden had been delivering Obama's "profound" message, he'd still be in single digits in the polls. You overestimate American voters.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Profound message? Nonsense. Posted by: El Hombre Malo
» Hillary wants us to believe Posted by: bthespoon
» RE: Profound message? Nonsense. Posted by: davescott
» RE: Profound message? Nonsense. Posted by: davescott

Comments are closed-

The Audacity of False Hope
[Report this comment]
Posted by: bthespoon on Jan 8, 2008 5:19 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Please do not be fooled by silver-tongued rhetoric. If Obama or Hillary or any Republican wins the nomination we will not fix health care, we will not bring our troops home from Iraq, and we will stay the course on corporate control of our government's policies. I can get specific and detailed if anyone wants to read it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The Audacity of False Hope Posted by: Jigsaw65
» RE: The Audacity of False Hope Posted by: bthespoon

Comments are closed-

A Progressive Non-Obama Independent
[Report this comment]
Posted by: JohnOsborneNY on Jan 8, 2008 5:24 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why should we complete another 4 years of a `learn on the job' type with David Axelrod and his minions and have BEERs w/Obama? His logic and Obamarama’s repeat of change, change, change reminds me of the Soviet era promise of Gorbachev's policy of Perestroika or Glasnost baloney. He even claps for himself like a Soviet leader entering the walk-up area of Lenin’s mausoleum, honestly! Watch him do it anytime he enters a large crowd! It’s the same crap that GWB did 8-9 years ago with another 100 million and what did we get ... a moron, twin towers destroyed, 2 regional wars, a destroyed economy gutted by Chinese domination of `our markets' and a multi-trillion USD deficit. What is Barack, Oprah and the `Obama Girl's' ... including Mr. Axelrod going to do with that? What is the plan? Give us the specifics, right now - because I and other progressives want to know? Air, fluff and pseudo-Kennedy/King oratory won't pay the bills, repair health care, solve Iraq, get rid of the Neo-Cons for good? Making me feel good about the `Shining Beacon on the Hill America as One' is not reality and the Obama Camp knows it - I can't see the `Holy Grail Vision' but it sells well and Mr. Axelrod knows that (no details, just the fluff) - no doubt about it! If this is your `new version of a leader for 2009' ... then we might as well just let `Dubya' run for a 3rd term. Seriously - if your progressive ... wake up, smell the Java and look at the legislation that has been co-sponsored by Mr. Obama with GOP colleagues - you may be surprised to find he is more Republican-lite than any supporter would like to know or hear or admit. And no … I do not fit in with Hillary or Huckabee, but I also research the `historical record' instead of running off cliffs w/o knowing what or whom I am voting for!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

old white homeboy
[Report this comment]
Posted by: halweiner on Jan 8, 2008 5:28 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hey, listen. The Presidency is not the be-all and end all of the U.S. Government. At least the Founding Fathers and Mothers ( yes, Virginia, there are some women besides Hillary Rodham Clinton who have figured in the history of this country, but that is for another post ) understood this when they devised a rather good system of checks and balances.

It doesn't matter who you elect as President if you have an Old Boy and Girl Network in Congress which is sleeping in the missionary position under the Corporate American Rapists. ONLY a trial lawyer ( why is that a dirty word? Does your doctor treat you on a contingency fee basis? ) like Edwards can curb their appetites and enforce the plethora of anti-trust, consumer and civil rights laws ALREADY on the books. We don't have to pass another single law in my lifetime. All we have to do is enforce the ones we have. The likelihood of any President getting elected who can do this is about as big as a microdot containing no information whatsoever.

Wake up and smell the demise of the United States. We are the next Great Britain. We are the people our parents warned us about.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Which statistics? Posted by: bthespoon
» Another old study Posted by: bthespoon

Comments are closed-

"We" and "Us" Rhetoric
[Report this comment]
Posted by: peacelf on Jan 8, 2008 5:32 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Say whatever he wants, Obama represents the status quo of neoliberal politics: we'll see little in change in the politics of government by the corporation, for the corporation, of the corporation; little change in education as Obama wants to keep No Child Left Behind, the most nefarious education policy since Pinochet's standardized testing programs to indoctrinate young Chileans; no change in health insurance industries owning american health.

What will change is that a black man will be elected president if he wins. While a very important step in american politics, marking the end of white male dominance in the oval office, Obama still represents wealth and power. I'm not sure if the trade off is worth it.

peace

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

This comment has been removed from the site due to non-compliance with AlterNet's community policies.
» RE: Hiddenone Posted by: marteau
» RE: Hideous ... Posted by: gazooks
» RE: Hiddenone Posted by: jjdoggie
» RE: Hiddenone Posted by: EncinoM

Comments are closed-

Congressman Kucinich warned us: The front-runners are more stylistic than substantive
[Report this comment]
Posted by: nochicagoboys on Jan 8, 2008 5:54 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"The truth is actually words do inspire," Senator Obama said this past weekend. I agree, but words don't "transpire" -- they don't reveal the underlying motivation, or character, of a person. With all of this year's crop of potential presidential suitors, their previous administrative and/or legislative records, and resumes, should be the real litmus test of their values and intentions -- not what they say in canned and posed political rhetoric that's designed to appeal to basic human emotions and needs.

I, like many, don't want to be "sold". I don't need to be complimented and shored-up with allusions of inclusiveness and team-building. These are also the ploys that too many companies employ today in order to build a sense of belonging and teamwork among, generally, under-appreciated and underpaid workers. It's all a part of the "me too" masquerade that's a substitute for true solidarity and "ownership". I distain being patronized in order to fulfill the needs of the one patronizing me. I reject it, and shy away from it, yet unfortunately too may accept this selfish cajoling at face value.

Please, do yourself, and your fellow citizens, a favor. if you want to know the real story behind the style and affinity that so many people have been drawn to, research the Senator's record. The author cites the expertise of George Lakoff, who said Obama is one of the most honest people he has ever met -- a comment the author claims he's heard from others working on Obama's campaign. These people, I'm sure, are sincere and feel the truth of their convictions. But, why isn't the good Senator's voting record taken into account? Wouldn't that, also, be a criteria for determining his honesty? Also, why isn't Senator Obama's trail of campaign contributors signaling a red flag? It's a fact that he accepts almost as much corporate funding as Senator Clinton (and no, before you make any assumptions, I'm not making a pitch for her candidacy) and in some business sectors, more than any of the front-runners of the GOP. My question, and I ask this with all sincerity, why is this acceptable to most hard-and-fast supporters of Senator Obama?

Many of you who have read my comments over the past few months know that I'm an ardent opponent of corporatism and corporate-personhood. It is, in my opinion, not only the greatest threat to our democratic freedoms that we experience today, but is also the cause of most of the social ills that our legislators and government executives never seem to have the will to solve. Corporate-personhood is the disease; our social ills are only the symptoms.

As I mentioned in another article a few days ago during this Obama euphoria, it's a good thing Abraham Lincoln isn't running for president this year. I have read that he was a very poor orator, and had a high, unappealing, voice -- a far cry from the Madison Avenue presidency sought by most Americans today.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Great Question!... Posted by: dover23
» RE: Great Question!... Posted by: nochicagoboys
» RE: Great Question!... Posted by: dover23

Comments are closed-

Never Mind
[Report this comment]
Posted by: chlamor on Jan 8, 2008 6:06 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Never Mind

Never mind, for example, that Obama was recently hailed as a “Hamiltonian” believer in “limited government” and “free trade” by Republican New York Times columnist David Brooks, who praises Obama for having “a mentality formed by globalization, not the SDS.” Or that he had to be shamed off the “New Democrat Directory” of the corporate-right Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) by the popular left black Internet magazine Black Commentator (Bruce Dixon, “Obama to Have Name Removed From DLC List,” Black Commentator, June 26, 2003).

Never mind that Obama (consistent with Brooks’s description of him) has lent his support to the aptly named Hamilton Project, formed by corporate-neoliberal Citigroup chair Robert Rubin and “other Wall Street Democrats” to counter populist rebellion against corporatist tendencies within the Democratic Party (David Sirota, “Mr. Obama Goes to Washington,” the Nation, June 26). Or that he lent his politically influential and financially rewarding assistance to neoconservative pro-war Senator Joe Lieberman’s (“D”-CT) struggle against the Democratic antiwar insurgent Ned Lamont. Or that Obama has supported other “mainstream Democrats” fighting antiwar progressives in primary races (see Alexander Cockburn, “Obama’s Game,” the Nation, April 24, 2006). Or that he criticized efforts to enact filibuster proceedings against reactionary Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito.

Never mind that Obama “dismissively” referred—in a “tone laced with contempt”—to the late progressive and populist U.S. Senator Paul Wellstone as “something of a gadfly.” Or that he chose the neoconservative Lieberman to be his “assigned” mentor in the U.S. Senate. Or that “he posted a long article on the liberal blog Daily Kos criticizing attacks against lawmakers who voted for right-wing Supreme Court nominee John Roberts.” Or that he opposed an amendment to the Bankruptcy Act that would have capped credit card interest rates at 30 percent. Or that he told Time magazine’s Joe Klein last year that he’d never given any thought to Al Gore’s widely discussed proposal to link a “carbon tax” on fossil fuels to targeted tax relief for the nation’s millions of working poor (Joe Klein, “The Fresh Face,” Time, October 17, 2006).

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.

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. Or that he opposed Senator Russ Feingold’s (D-WI) move to censure the Bush administration after the president was found to have illegally wiretapped U.S. citizens. Or that he shamefully distanced himself from fellow Illinois Democratic Senator Dick Durbin’s forthright criticism of U.S. torture practices at Guantanamo. Or that he refuses to foreswear the use of first-strike nuclear weapons against Iran.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Never Mind Posted by: bbfmail
» RE: Never Mind Posted by: EdinIowa
» RE: Never Mind Posted by: primalscream
» RE: Never Mind Posted by: jmooney

Comments are closed-

The fly in the pronoun ointment
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Ellen Remore on Jan 8, 2008 6:14 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's all very well for Sen. Obama to campaign on a "we can" platform. It's a great marketing idea. However, because the mechanics of government have become so detached from the interests of the electorate, the truth of the matter is that "we," in a practical sense, are altogether powerless--irrespective of which candidate we put in the Oval Office. We The People have, for quite some time, seen the interests of campaign financiers and lobbyists taking precedence over our own. And all the clever rhetoric in the world will not alter that sorry situation. Thus, Senator Obama's good intentions may float away with the champagne bubbles on election night as soon as he goes mano-a-mano with the self-interest of Congress. (Unless, of course, we're willing to tolerate another "unitary presidency." I believe we are not.)

Mr. Obama certainly has charisma; there's no doubt of that. And I'm quite sure he's sincere. But personally, I vastly prefer a John Edwards who promises to "fight for me" against the corporate oligarchy that has effectively purchased--and jettisoned--our democracy. Mr. Edwards seems to be the only candidate who is willing to acknowledge that fact, and might actually be able to do something about it.

I suggest we tone down the dewy-eyed idealism just a tad; at least until we hear exactly how Obama plans to use "us" as soldiers to fight The Good Fight. Meanwhile, Mr. Edwards continues to appear the "Practical Pig" of the Three Little Front-Runners.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Is he all mouth or can he sting like a bee?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: rac on Jan 8, 2008 6:27 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obama’s language may get him the one-on-one with the Republican contenda, but once in office, he may prove him to be too conciliatory and too inclusive. He may not be the agent of change many of us hope he is. Edwards is more experienced fighting corporations. His instincts and experience make him the better choice to put in the White House.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

OBAMA
[Report this comment]
Posted by: jjdoggie on Jan 8, 2008 6:28 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A cynical bunch. After the article, which I agree with, I scroll down to the comments, ..... and what a cynical bunch of naysayers you are!
I am 63, and have lived through segregation in Montgomery, SEEN Rosa Parks cause the year-long bus boycott and change Montgomery. I came of age in the time of Vietnam, the worst part of it, Tet. I was in college in Maryland when King gave his great speech in D.C. I worked for womens' rights in the 70's. Raised two daughters who are strong and caring. Built houses for Katrina survivors. Lobbied and petitioned and marched against this atrocious war, vigiled against the Texas death penalty. I have lived in the best economy, and now, one of the worst.
It does not matter if I am white or black, gay or straight. I am for tolerance and equality.
I have SEEN what can be done when people CARE.
OBAMA FEELS it. He knows what can be done, and like Robert Kennedy, he knows that people can be inspired to JOIN him in the quest for the true American and global dream.
I only fear for his life. I do not know if this racist country will allow him to run and serve. He has the guts to put his dreams and plans in the fore for us. I intend to fight for him.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Then you fight for my death Posted by: bthespoon
» I'm sick Posted by: hellofriends
» RE: OBAMA-No We Can't Posted by: NoPCZone
» RE: OBAMA Posted by: Basenjis
» RE: OBAMA Posted by: bbfmail
» hey old dude Posted by: Iconoclast421
» Don't blame us for Bush Posted by: bthespoon

Comments are closed-

Dont Be Surprised
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Iconoclast421 on Jan 8, 2008 6:29 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Dont be surprised when, after getting elected, Obama is unable to accomplish anything. He wont stop the devaluation of your dollar. He likely wont even discuss it. Nor will he discuss how much money was stolen from social security to have that balanced budget that wont even be balanced anyway. Nor will he discuss the number of years, or months, that social security will be solvent. Nor will he address the fact that ethanol production raises food prices beyond whatever cost savings might be realized at the pump. Nor will he discuss the AQ Khan / Pakistan story with much honesty. Nor will he pledge to pardon Sibel Edmonds if she tells her entire story. Nor will he call you a moron for not knowing who is AQ Khan or Sibel Edmonds! He damn well should, if he was an honest politician!

He may come and take your guns though! And if you're really lucky, he'll come and confiscate your gold, just like FDR did. Oh, that's right, you dont have any gold... no need to worry about that then eh? Just exactly what DO you have left? Housing bubble, credit crunch, negative savings rate, peak oil, trade deficit, currency devaluation, >1% autism rates, horrible test scores, no education, no future, no ability to discern, no ability to tell truth from lie. I really hope your vote for Obama makes you FEEL GOOD! But you are living in a dreamland if you actually think he's gonna DO anything.

Dont be surprised if you get screwed by electing this guy if you dont do any research, dont think for yourself, and dont study history. Dont forget they paraded this guy around 4 years ago. They've been grooming him. Hillary = Obama. If you're following the campaign then you must keep in mind that the differences between the two are like the difference between the salt content in two pieces of dog poo... If you forget that fact then you may as well just spend your time chasing around Paris Hilton.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» wtf is a closet ron paul troll? Posted by: Iconoclast421

Comments are closed-

Vote Edwards..Why is the mainstream media ignoring him????
[Report this comment]
Posted by: MeridaLady on Jan 8, 2008 6:29 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Edwards is the only serious candidate that is not in anyone's pocket. Go to his website and read his speeches and his issues.

He tells it like it is, points fingers, and cites other politicians bad policies.

No Neocon money and they hate him!!!!!

Why do you think, although he came in second in Iowa, he's being ignored????????

I even read an article where he was labeled paranoid for stating he will illiminate the lobbyists from power in Washington.

He's the only candidate that will and can change the lobbyist control after winning the election in November and get rid of the unconstitutional Bushy reforms.

The changes that Edwards is proposing is everything, most of here, are so outraged about.

Please get real here and vote for Edwards. He can not only win against Neocons but will actually give the country back to the people.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

It's early, why are we inaugurating anyone?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: PJAW on Jan 8, 2008 7:09 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Perhaps Obama would be better than the simian creature that currently occupies the White House, but he clearly is not our best option (based on his voting record). The MSM and their corporate masters desperately want to give one of their chosen few the appearance of being destined to be the next president. They would be tickled to have anyone from the Republican camp, but they know the American people are almost certainly going Democratic this time around. So what are their options? Simple, select those who are least likely to upset the applecart and promote them to the front (Clinton, Obama and, to a lesser degree, Edwards) while marginalizing anyone who poses a threat to the status quo (Kucinich, Dodd, Richardson). This pattern has been followed for months now and unless something dramatic happens in New Hampshire today, such as a show of strong populist support for Kucinich, it is working smoothly.

Obama, if elected, will be hailed as a "historic change", and he will be, but primarily in a cosmetic sense. If you look closely at his record (as some have done here today), you will see that he might have the capacity to make you feel good, but with little promise for real change.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Montana Maven
[Report this comment]
Posted by: FeralCat on Jan 8, 2008 7:11 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The comments on this essay are not simple, and they are more profound than this insubstantial essay on Obama's simple but profound appeal. Obama steals things. He steals ideas, messages and whole titles. His "Audacity of Hope" was the name of a sermon by his minister the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and from what I read about him in the Rolling Stone, Wright makes Obama's rhetorical style "look like John Kerry." In the Illinois Senate he took an audacious health care plan and turned it into the "Adequate Health Care" Plan. The Boston Globe reports "Lobbyists praised Obama for taking the insurance industry's concerns into consideration." So the "we" of Illinois citizens got some watered down punk ass bill. But that didn't stop Obama praising himself for bringing "Republicans and Democrats together to solve problems that touch the lives of everyday people. I've taken on the drug and insurance companies and won." [notice the "I" Mr. Rosenfeld which is far more typical of Mr. Obama than his latest theft of Mr. Edwards message.]

MR. Edwards has consistently said "we" since I started reading and listening to him in 2003. Lately he's added and "I will fight for you" but he always refers to us as "brothers and sisters" and he knows he's part of the cause to restore democracy from a growing corporate fascist state that "has a stranglehold" on our way of life.
And together we will rise up and "we are the leaders we are looking for." Look at any of Edwards major policy speeches and you will see a PROFOUND, yes, profound set of visionary ideas and ways to achieve them. He is the candidate of substance which is part of a bigger picture.

Edwards doesn't care about being part of the establishment. He's been there, done that. Like FDR, He wants to take it on. It's clear to me that Obama desperately wants to belong. His whole life has been about achieving acceptance primarily for himself and he is on the verge of getting there.
And it's time for Professor Lakoff to retire quietly to California. "Honest?" I wouldn't use that word to describe Obama. Without a script, yes, he is blunt, sometimes snide as he was to Hillary the other night and a bit awkward at times which gives him an air of honesty. But you can't lie down with corporations like the nuclear power company Exelon and then look us in the eye and say that you are for "change" while you vote for new nuclear power plants. You don't vote for the Peru Free Trade that has worse labor provisions than NAFTA and be for "change". Come on.
P.S. Sorry for the cranky tone, but I grow weary of these fluff pieces and fluff candidates.
"I'm a uniter not a divider" in a smarter nicer package is not what I want. I want a revolution.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

It is all about "Me."
[Report this comment]
Posted by: douglashoyt on Jan 8, 2008 7:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obama knows people are self centered. Therefore, he makes sounds which promote the introspective: "It is all about me."

Clever laid.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Could Obama be the nex JFK?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Peacekeeper on Jan 8, 2008 7:46 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As I Read the Story that Compared Obama to Reagan, I thought About the Speach, John F Kenedy gave when He took office, those Famous words "Ask not what your Country can do for you, Ask what you can do for your Country". That speach led thousands of young people to join the Peace Corp, and those young peaple did make a difference in the world. John F Kennedy was also a Senator, before becoming President. Lets hope that Hate mongers, will not try to take his life, I hope America has gotten past All that.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Could Obama be the nex JFK? Posted by: davescott

Comments are closed-

Politics without Politics
[Report this comment]
Posted by: pdxstudent on Jan 8, 2008 8:25 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is what Obama is selling when he tries to tell us we've been doing it all wrong, having opposing and varied positions. No author, certainly not in this article, offers a substantive argument for why "we" is better than "I," especially when "we" implies an "I" that a generic, non-existent conglomerate of so-called liberal and conservative America. I say this as a full-blown Pinko too, because we should already take it for granted that when any politician says "I" they are saying "we," because that is what why WE elect them. It is when Obama, or anyone else really, turns around and starts saying what we already know that we should start to wonder, "but wait, why are you saying that? We know you're talking about "we" when you say "I," so why say it?"

He is playing to the degenerate ethos of the times that sees compromise as more important than the inherent value of a position. This is fundamentally the Capitalist ethos. It should sell, if anything, shoddy Chinese toys to gullible suburban children, not national presidential campaigns. Like I've pointed out before, the Democratic party is treating this nomination process like they were selling something at the market, and in the process to make the biggest profits they turn out a commodity-candidate whose chief value is in his ability to sell (not do anything we want once we've "bought" him). Is this not how consumerism works though? We are bombarded with commodities that effectively offer us happiness/security/wholeness; we know they cannot offer us these things, not given what we know about the commodities (face it, we know it's crap), and yet we still buy them because we hope they are what we know them not to be. This is the formula of ideology: not the old Marxist, naive 'false consciousness' of "They do not know, and they still do it," but "they very well know it (the shallowness of a commodity or a politician's rhetoric), and yet they STILL do it (by into the commodity or the politician)."

Joshua Holland has already gone down this line by suggesting that we hope Obama is not what we know him to be. This wishful thinking is what keeps consumerism and capitalism generally afloat and it is what will continue to sink the ship of our democracy. This is because Obama is against (democratic) politics when he denies the inherent antagonism that functions as the engine of politics. This is what I mean by politics without politics. This is also what Hitler meant when he sought to overcome all the social antagonisms of the German people by displacing them onto the Jews, making them THEE problem of society, and trying to get rid of them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Magic? I don't get that.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: EvilPoet on Jan 8, 2008 8:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm an atheist maybe that's why I don't get or see all this magic that everyone keeps going on and on about.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Magic? I don't get that. Posted by: aonghus36

Comments are closed-

Now the cat's out of the bag
[Report this comment]
Posted by: BitcoDavid on Jan 8, 2008 8:43 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You should never have written this article. Now that focus group tested, poll certified "Billary" will start saying "we" in all her prefab, made to order speeches.

I'm glad Obama is doing so well, but as all progressives out there know, Kucinich is the only truly Liberal (yes, I said it) candidate.

ABC did him, and us, a great disservice by denying him a spot at that so called debate. It was for that reason that I chose not to watch. However, it needs to be said, in all fairness, that I don't watch much TeeVee, at all, anymore, and even less so, ABC.

I did send them an E-mail, which they, as yet, have refused to answer.

Kucinich Rules, Dood!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

A failure to understand politics is evident in this thread.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Jan 8, 2008 8:52 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Look - lobbyists and employees of finance, real estate, and related firms have kicked down millions in bundled contributions to all of the leading candidates. Now, those lobbyists have backed off and are watching and waiting in the shadows.

Regardless of who wins the Democratic and Republican primaries, the lobbyists will still be waiting and watching.

The Republican operatives will roll out every dirty trick in the book as the electoral process proceeds, and have already started doing so. Their goals will be to reduce Democratic turnout and increase Republican turnout. Democratic political operatives will be doing the same thing - sort of a "George Lakoff vs. Frank Luntz" view of the electoral process. Talk is cheap, however, and Lakoff and Luntz are nothing but psychological manipulators, truth be told.

Let's say that Obama wins the primary and the presidency. People will cheer, we'll see a lot of self-congratulatory behavior, and people will go home to sleep, oh-so-happy about their victory over the Republican Party.

However, that's the point that the lobbyists wake up and roll into action - AFTER THE ELECTION. They'll contact all their people in the Obama campaign, they'll demand favors, and they'll push candidates for various government departments and cabinet posts who will protect their interests. They'll present pre-written bills that they want the President to support, and on and on. This is the case regardless of who wins.

So, if you want to affect the political process and see real change, you had better not go to sleep after the election is over. The real struggle is against the power of corporate lobbyists in politics - and the real fight will start the day AFTER the election.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» More Than That Though Posted by: pdxstudent

Comments are closed-

hope the game is over earlier
[Report this comment]
Posted by: brucerise on Jan 8, 2008 9:09 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
black president? woman president? then bush?????

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Obama IS the man!
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Bobsays on Jan 8, 2008 9:16 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Blair in the UK understood this as well: you aren't going anywhere being negative. You have to inspire people to do things. The problem is that most ultra-leftists are negative by their own nature. That's great for a bar-room bitch session, but it doesn't get anything done.

I believe people have two sides: a nasty, negative, violent side; and a beautiful, positive and sharing side. A good person and a good politician appeals to the later side.

Obama is generating a magical energy that people are vibing on.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

This article is a stupid summary of what Chris Matthews said last night
[Report this comment]
Posted by: hellofriends on Jan 8, 2008 9:17 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
thanks for being the MSM. i'm so inspired.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Why did you vote for the NeoCon Bankruptcy Bill?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: lamar on Jan 8, 2008 9:23 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There's a big problem with all of Obama's vague, communitarian rah rah rah. He's full of it. It's all "community this" and "community that" until it comes time to give more power to credit card companies. Which community to they belong to?

Why aren't people calling Obama out on this stuff?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Why do you support ethanol?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: bthespoon on Jan 8, 2008 9:36 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
is another one. Do you think he doesn't know that it takes more energy to produce than it saves, or that it costs a gallon of water per gallon of fuel? And what's this about the NUCULAR :-) thing?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

MR. WARM AND FUZZY
[Report this comment]
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Jan 8, 2008 9:42 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't know anything about Obama. He seems like an OK guy. He's written 2 bestselling books and that's all to his credit. But I'm not sure he can stand up to criticism. He seems overly sensitive and insecure. How can would handle a real challenge, not a staged debate. He's running on theatrics and nothing substantive. The "change" thing is already old. Change from what to what. Thanks, ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

The Obama Ether or Same old wine in a brand new bottle..
[Report this comment]
Posted by: TJ-stars4peace on Jan 8, 2008 10:24 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Well reading the comments here I am glad to see that I am not the only one who has not fallen under the Obama Ether..

After all these terrible years of the Bush Mafia you would think we could hve developed a candidate with a real agenda and real specific solutions on a grand scale..

Also I for one am not about to make nice with these fucking Republican fascist bastards..

If we are in any way a mortal nation they must be crushed and splintered and exposed for all the harm they have done so we can really move on into a better future..for the 21st Century..

Obama will make deals and take half measures and in most cases those who have suffered under the Bush administration will be making all the concessions..

After 8 years of Bush We The People are being put in neutral and left spinning our wheels with Obama..

Simple as that..

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

FRANKLY, I WANT TO HEAR MORE "I WILL"
[Report this comment]
Posted by: tylerstmark on Jan 8, 2008 10:56 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The idea that any candidate using the "we" instead of the "I" is somehow the better candidate is idealistic but merely semantics and, to my mind, political fluff--which we don't need at this time.

The simply fact is WE THE PEOPLE can and will have very little to do with the actual shifting of our country's direction or the mending of the overwhelming damage that Bush will have done to this country in just eight years.

Yes, we can cheer the new administration on, make our personal opinions known, and even hope to influence that administration through our local and state representatives--but make no mistake; the real work will be done by one person in tandem with a cooperative Congress who has come out of its political coma.

Any professional spin doctor will tell you that the use of the "we" in political speech making does exactly what the author of the article "Yes, We Can" implies. However, its a political given that this is an editorial "we" and bears little resemblance to the administrative machine once the candidate is elected.

Frankly, I want to hear more "I will" followed by tangible and constructive solutions not vague political rhetoric. I want to hear a candidate say simply and specifically what he (or she) will do to get us out of Iraq, fix the economic quagmire and corporate despotism that has occurred in this country, and how universal healthcare will be a reality for each and every American.

I don't know about you but I, unfortunately, have no personal power to implement these goals--no matter how romantic the notion is. I require a President who indeed says "I will" not "We can."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Obama..the Tupperware tribe
[Report this comment]
Posted by: militaryhater on Jan 8, 2008 11:16 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yes, ride the wave..join the celebration. Live on catchy phrases...'WE' will over come! We...We we.. BUT the WE is I. The President decides..WE never comes into it. They have their own agenda. I am still shell shocked the Americans are so dumb to sell out to this corporate Lap dog...trained and groomed to win the Presidency. A man who doesn't even represent his state in the Senate and never shows up to VOTE. I guess controlling the Media is POWER. Play the message over and over and people will believe it..afterall, the Media 'ALWAYS' tells the truth..don't they?

Wake up America and quit voting Beauty...I guess Americans are alot like Forest Gump...stupid is as stupid does. Turn off the TV...CNN, FOX News...etc. and start delving into the true minds of these candidates. Stop being sheep and be led over a cliff. Wake UP..stop acting like MEDIA ZOMBIES!

I see the Tupperware cheering that Obama's team is doing..rile 'em up with energy and no substance! Lead them in cheers..get them caught up in the energy of nothing. They will be so brainwashed with catchy phrases, they will blindly vote against themselves. A man who will not represent them...but only the rich.

HE VOTES RICH PEOPLE. He votes against his own African American people...he is corporate..he voted for the side of Financial services...HE VOTES against average Americans...the Middle class and Poverty. Read between the lies..SEE THE MAN In WOLVES CLOTHING before it is too late.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

kucinich's weakness
[Report this comment]
Posted by: davescott on Jan 8, 2008 11:41 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What Kucinich has not done is shown any capacity to raise his poll numbers above 1 percent or get a single primary delegate.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: kucinich's weakness Posted by: hellofriends

Comments are closed-

Hillary the Scarriest of the Dems; radioactive Obama next
[Report this comment]
Posted by: herbal on Jan 8, 2008 12:01 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But campaign for nice man Obama? He is misinformed and is showing sings of having joined the Corporatists. Obama needs to be rejected because of his endorsement for Nuclear Energy.

There is absolutely no long term comparison between Nuclear and any other polluting source of energy. Why? The new Nuclear proponents are only short term thinkers. Can Asteroid miner and Nuke shill Comby take responsibility for the 146,000 year half life of the most virulently carcinogenic, Plutonium? Can the US government, the longest living Republic government in history (only 230 years) that has now come to an end, make any guarantees? They are absurd to ignore the fact that all waste and toxins of radionucleides are absolutely and unavoidably cumulative. They will raise the background radiation levels worldwide. Review the research of epidemiologist, Rosalie Bertells, MD, on effects of low level radiation. Death.

The solution mainly is a social one. Mankind must take responsibility for not confusing wants with needs. Energy use must first be reduced. There simply is no excuse for promoting Nuke.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Hopeful Idealist?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: whatzaname on Jan 8, 2008 1:12 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I, too, was enamored of Barack Obama when he first emerged on the national scene, but after buying his book, researching his "platform" and listening to him speak, I've come to the conclusion that he's full of hope, but not much else. I need someone willing to FIGHT for our country, since Big Business is fighting against us, every step of the way. Obama would make a great president-in-training, aka Vice President, and I'd vote for him for President if he was the Democratic nominee, given the fact that there is certainly no one in the Republican line up that I could stomach. But I don't think his idealistic hopefulness is going to win this election for the Democratic party, leaving this nation to rot under at least 4 more years of Corporate Republican Rule.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» My problem is if Obama wins Posted by: bthespoon

Comments are closed-

Thank YOU!
[Report this comment]
Posted by: LeaderofMen on Jan 8, 2008 2:22 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thanks for making this linguistic distinction. It appears that Obama has read, heard of, or intuitively understands language or at least what George Lakoff has written about.

This is precisely why people love the man. He speaks an entirely different language than what everyone else is speaking.

Compare and contrast Obama-speak with the complete nonsense that comes out of Bush's mouth.

I rest my case.

On Thursday night I will be seeing Barack speak live here in Chicago at a cafe in Lincoln Park. I freakin' can't wait to hear him live and in person.

I will be able to say that I was there to hear history being made.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Thank YOU! Posted by: EdinIowa

Comments are closed-

6 months ago
[Report this comment]
Posted by: anothername on Jan 8, 2008 2:24 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
After the Iowa caucuses, I heard paid commentator after paid commentator express shock at how the inevitable did not happen. I also started seeing numerous essays on AlterNet about the leading candidates. Yet, on the Democratic side, all of this was obvious 6 months ago. Why did we not have these discussions then? Even on the Republican side, where the national press is tripping over itself at Mitt Romney's showing, it was obvious Mitt was ahead only because nobody else had received enough attention, yet.

Here's a lesson from Bob the Builder. Barack Obama says "Yes, we can," but only talks about hope over fear and change. On Bob the Builder, the questions are much more specific. Farmer Brown needs a new fence. "Can we build it?!" "Yes, we can!" "The school needs an addition." "Can we build it? Yes, we can."

I'd be much happier hearing Barack pull in a bit of John Kerry (hey, stop that laughter; okay, I'm laughing, too). E.g., "Can we raise incomes?" I'd be much happier with specific categories of change.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Who Are You People????
[Report this comment]
Posted by: LeaderofMen on Jan 8, 2008 2:40 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Who the F are all of you negative people? Where is your sense of what's going on in this country RIGHT THIS VERY MOMENT? The Bush neocon cabal has raped and pillaged this country until your legs are up in the air saying: put in in right here.

But all you can do is disparage Obama.

Obama represents the complete opposite of what we have in this country right this very second. The opposite. Have you all forgotten what it's like to like your country? Have you all forgotten what it's like to be asked to climb on board and be inspired?

Do you want us to work with the rest of the world to manage climate change? You're not going to get it while ANY Republican is in office. Do you want jobs to stay in this country? You're not going to get it while ANY Republican is in office. Do you want a shift away from the mentality that has split this country apart at the seams? You're not going to get it while ANY Republican is in office.

Hillary is bought and paid for by pharmaceutical companies. She's not going to give you healthcare. Edwards might be able to do it but he's being manipulated by large corporations. Not that he's an awful candidate. Hey, just the opposite. He could easily be the man to handle all of that and more.

But to disparage the Obama wave as being somehow 'fascist' or corporate controlled, or anti-American, or 'he's not for Illinois', etc. is to completely ignore the message. The meaning and the message. The language, the meaning and the message.

Dig deeper people. You're just not used to this kind of talk. It's unthinkable in this day and age because of what Bush, Kristol, Wolfowitz and the rest of the neocons have done to our psyches.

Get over yourselves. We have a winner on our hands. Give the man the opportunity to change this country.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Only because Posted by: bthespoon
» Think About... Posted by: pdxstudent
» To not be afraid... Posted by: bthespoon
» The Problem Posted by: pdxstudent
» What is the MSM? Posted by: bthespoon
» The Mainstream Media Posted by: pdxstudent
» Just So You Know Posted by: pdxstudent
» oh.... Posted by: bthespoon
» RE: Who Are You People???? Posted by: EdinIowa
» RE: Who Are You People???? Posted by: jmooney

Comments are closed-

Breaking "news" from a trailer park in Arkansas
[Report this comment]
Posted by: CharliePatton on Jan 8, 2008 3:49 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Former president Bill Clinton calls Barack Obama, "the biggest fairy tale ever."

Video from ABC "news".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Why are All of You Still Undecided and Screaming?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: LeftCoastProgressive on Jan 8, 2008 3:56 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I read an article today and it really got me thinking. Why am I still undecided on the presidential candidates? I know one thing, it's not because I don't know enough about them. So, why? I never really thought about why I am having so much trouble with this decision, until today. In the past I would have already come to some solid conclusions. I keep telling myself that I'm waiting for someone to say something that convinces me beyond any doubt that he/she is the one.

Basically, after the last seven years of dumbshit, killer-of-ragheads, George W. Bush, I have become very distrusting of politicians. Granted, I've always been distrusting to some degree, but it's much more now. Even though I didn't vote for Bush, many others did. They voted for him because he was "likable". This is something I will never understand. Why would anyone use "likability" as a reason to vote for a president.

Looks are deceiving...And let's face it, "likable" people might seem that way to your face, but not have any trouble turning around and knifing you in the back. Don't we all know someone like that? Words can be deceiving, and most of all - politicians can be very deceiving. What we need is a debate where all the candidates are simultaneously hooked up to lie detectors with huge meters displayed above their heads. Because after Bush, the single most important quality to me in a president...is Trust. I might love every opinion a particular candidate has on the issues, but in the end if they are lying, none of those promises mean anything.

CHANGE is the new "buzz" word the politicians are throwing around. And yes...Change would be great. But what this country really needs is TRUST. Who can we trust? Listen to what they say and HOW they say it. Then close your eyes and think of him/her as President. Listen while he tells an international audience what he will do as PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. Does it ring true in your heart? Then lets put that person in the Whitehouse!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» TRUST Posted by: Cathyc

Comments are closed-

Not...
[Report this comment]
Posted by: fifthworld on Jan 8, 2008 5:10 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obama, as Glen Ford noted yesterday, is a "war ho". He's the corporate elite in slightly darker skin -- so big deal! Get real America, and do the digging. Wake up from naivete.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Hillary's tears and "iron my shirt" tactics are working this evening
[Report this comment]
Posted by: haystack1317 on Jan 8, 2008 5:13 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I believe that Hillary's tears yesterday and the incredible airplay they got just may turn the tide in NH as she does better than expected. I also believe that the two guys with the "Iron My Shirt" signs were plants. I believe it was a stunt to get media attention and to make Hillary's obstacles appear great and rally women behind her. I wouldn't put anything past them. So, between her tears and her sudden good fortune in being given an opportunity to remind Democrats she's fighting sexism, she's on the go again. Frightening, to me. Remember, this is not about impressing Republicans at this point, just Dems and Inds. So, she's shown her human side, won our symphathy on all counts, reminded us of latent sexism, and turned it around. I've got that sickening feeling in my stomach thinking about how the mainstream media covered this. Who's been a better friend to media consolidation than the Clintons?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

So You Don't Want Obama, Do You Prefer Huckabee (aka Bush Chap II) or McCain (war man)?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: sofla100 on Jan 8, 2008 5:24 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We on the left have to be very careful on how we approach things. Now, before getting on the Obama bandwagon, it is true that Obama knows which way the bread is buttered. Wall Street and the corporate boys are funneling money into him. The hedge funds, banks, credit card companies, they sure are not going to take any chances. And, Obama is going to have to oblige them, that is just the way the game is played. So, we can knock off the true believer stuff, you know, "Obama is the real thing,...etc." If you really believe that, I can sell you land on the moon. Now, next we have to deal with reality. Kuicinch is going nowhere in this race, so forget about that. The Repubs. will probably float either Huckabee or McCain. Huckabee is Bush, Chapter II. The wars, torture, and a collapsing economy as even more money is funneled into the upper classes. Do we want that? As for McCain, he will send even more troops into Iraq and be very aggressive with US forces around the globe. He will probably want to expand NATO right into the Moscow suburbs if he can, so he invites more war and military escalation. Again, do we want that? So, we are much better off with Obama. Of course, a corporate man, like most of them all are. But a practical man, not one likely to start wars and a man not plugged into the Evangelicals and their mission for a "decent America." So, yes, I will support Obama as the Democratic nominee. I know the rhetoric he spews means little, national health care for example going nowhere because all the insurance companies have be dealt in. But, at least, we shouldn't see a war with Iran, stripping of women's rights, and more people around the globe disappearing into Guantanamo or being roasted on a spigot in a CIA hellhole somewhere. And, when you travel abroad, you won't have to lie anywhere and say you are from Canada or something, so people will at least talk with you.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» That's why we need Edwards... Posted by: bthespoon

Comments are closed-

same whore different face...
[Report this comment]
Posted by: digitalfrenzy on Jan 8, 2008 5:49 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You people are pathetic...liberals, republicans, everyone. Your country was bought and sold a long time ago. To get all wrapped up in this charade is laughable at best. You are all wasting your time. If you don't think the next leader has been chosen, you are a simple, gullible, sheep. If you can present me with a serious fact based rebuttal to my statement, I welcome it with open mind, ears and heart.

You are all squabbling over that scraps that corporate america has left you. you are saps.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: same whore different face... Posted by: izquerdista

Comments are closed-

Your Name Here
[Report this comment]
Posted by: HeKnew on Jan 8, 2008 7:55 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If you've never heard the Good Cop feelgood line of campaign bull before it can only mean that you're too young and this is your first campaign cycle, you're too old and have Alzheimers, or you're in the middle and you're so delusional that you'll probably walk into a gas station rest room thinking its a polling place, pull on the towel dispenser and go home congratulating yourself that you voted for Obama.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

VOCA, now !
[Report this comment]
Posted by: HeKnew on Jan 8, 2008 8:01 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A Vote of Confidence Amendment will enable the American voting public to dismiss any elected official who fails in their obligation to serve the people of the United States.

VOCA, now

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Obama et al are corporate robot Dems. Kucinich OWNS!
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Clockwise Cat on Jan 8, 2008 8:09 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm so tired of AlterNet smooching the butts of Republican Lite Dems.

Just watch DK's speech at the NH Democratic Party. Why would you choose anyone else?!?!?!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Madison Avenue Obama
[Report this comment]
Posted by: TRC on Jan 8, 2008 8:42 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I heard Obama's victory speach after the Iowa Caucuses. I was amazed that he could say NOTHING and get a crowd worked up. Hope and Change and, of course, pandering to the "American People". That was it! He is well packaged (one might say "new and improved") but he just what Wall Street, Madison Avenue, and Corporate Welfare recipients need to carry-on - a convincing illusion.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

extinction or the collapse of civilization due to global warming
[Report this comment]
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Jan 9, 2008 1:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The next president will have to take drastic action to prevent our extinction or the
collapse of civilization due to global warming . Great damage has been done, but
we still have 8 years before natural positive feedbacks lead to our extinction. Sea
level will continue to rise even if we disappear right now, but that is "minor"
compared to poison gas bubbling out of the ocean and killing almost everything.
See the chart on page 274 of "Six Degrees" by Mark Lynas. We have until 2015
to BEGIN REDUCING our total CO2 output and we have until 2050 to actually
reduce our CO2 output by 90%. The curve has to start down by 2015, not we
have to think about it by then. The peak of our CO2 production has to happen in
the next 8 years. Sorry, but we can't wait for research, no matter how interesting.
We have to implement what we know right now. The only technology we have
right now to replace coal fired power plants is nuclear power plants. I like solar,
wind, hydro, and geothermal, but all of them together cannot replace the base load
capacity of coal. Sorry, but nuclear is the only option. If we don't follow the
schedule in Six Degrees, we will encounter positive feedbacks which will take the
control of the climate out of our hands. Civilization may fall anyway well before
2050, but we can avoid going extinct by 2100. We have to hold the CO2 level to
400 parts per million to have a 75% chance of avoiding the positive feedbacks.
The natural positive feedbacks are explained in Six Degrees.

Nuclear power is NOT dangerous. Coal is the most dangerous and radioactive
source of electricity. Nuclear power can save us from extinction. The
comparison has to be with extinction. Do you understand what the word "extinct"
means? If we keep burning FOSSIL fuels containing CARBON, EVERY
PERSON will be DEAD. THERE WILL BE ZERO SURVIVORS.
EXTINCTION means NO MORE HOMO SAPIENS, EVER. NOT EVEN the
worst possible nuclear war, a "general exchange" between the United States and
the old Soviet Union could achieve the extinction of Homo Sapiens. That would
mean exploding 40,000 H bombs all at once in the old days or maybe only 20,000
H bombs now.

The simultaneous deaths of 6,400,000,000 people would not even be noticeable in
the geologic record. Human population would rebound too fast for the dip to be
noticeable in the rocks. But extinction would clearly be noticed by some future
space alien or future intelligent earth species geologist. He would find no more
humans after the extinction event.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Plutonium is good fuel
[Report this comment]
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Jan 9, 2008 1:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Everything, including yourself, is made of atoms. All atoms have nuclei. You
have many atomic nuclei inside yourself since you are made of atoms. The
simplest nucleus is one proton. That would be a hydrogen atom. An oxygen
atom has 8 protons and either 8, 9 or 10 neutrons in its nucleus. All other nuclei
also have neutrons. Uranium has 92 protons and either 143 or 146 neutrons. If it
has 143 neutrons it is U235. If it has 146 neutrons, it is U238. Nuclear fuel is
only 2% to 8% U235, the kind that fissions/divides, providing energy. The rest is
U238 that doesn't fission. A nuclear reaction happens when a neutron is captured
by a nucleus. If a U235 nucleus captures a neutron, the nucleus and the atom split
approximately in half and 3 more neutrons are released because the 2 smaller
nuclei don't need so many neutrons. If a U238 nucleus captures a neutron, it
ejects an electron and the neutron becomes a proton. The U238 thus becomes
Plutonium 239. Plutonium is fissionable, which means that plutonium is a good
fuel. If you add Thorium to the fuel, you can make more fissionable uranium. If
a Thorium atom nucleus captures a neutron, it ejects an electron and the neutron
becomes a proton. The Thorium atom thus becomes U233. U233 is fissionable.

Depending on the design of the reactor and the mix of the fuel, the fuel % in the
reactor can either grow or shrink. It is kind of like the fuel gauge can go either up
or down, but it is more like the reactor can run hotter or cooler over time. The
temperature is kept constant by adjusting the control rods. A breeder reactor is a
reactor designed to make the fissionable part of the fuel load grow rapidly.
Normally, fuel is left in the reactor for about 10 years, or 10% of the fuel is
replaced each year. The reprocessing step sorts out the fuel and puts the
percentage of fissionable fuel back to the starting percentage. In the process,
plutonium may be removed and either wasted or used as fuel. If we add thorium
to the fuel, we can make more uranium than we put in. Since the earth contains
more than twice as much thorium as uranium, it would be wise to make thorium
into uranium. By reprocessing nuclear fuel, we get an enormous, many centuries
long fuel supply without doing much mining. Only minute amounts of un-
enriched uranium or thorium need to be added to lower the percentage of
fissionable fuel. The products of fission are also removed when fuel is
reprocessed. These are just other ordinary atoms that are no longer useful as fuel.
The quantity is very small. We should reprocess fuel to keep the fuel load at the
correct percentage of fissionable fuel for the particular reactor design. Instead, we
go through the expensive process of making more "virgin" fuel for each new fuel
load. This greatly increases the price you pay for electricity. We are not
reprocessing nuclear fuel for political reasons.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Obama and high URANIUM coal from Illinois
[Report this comment]
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Jan 9, 2008 1:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obama pushed for more mining of Illinois coal. I hope that
was only in the past. The problem is that Illinois coal
contains up to 103 parts per million URANIUM. That is
103 time the URANIUM in average coal. Did you know
that, using average coal, enough URANIUM goes up the
smokestack or into the cinders of a coal-fired power plant
to Fully fuel a nuclear power plant with the same output?
See:
http://www.ornl.gov/ORNLReview/rev26-
34/text/coalmain.html
If breeding of thorium into uranium and using plutonium as
fuel are allowed, enough uranium and thorium go up the
smokestack of one coal-fired power plant to fully fuel 500
nuclear power plants of the same size. That isn't all that
goes up the smokestacks of coal-fired power plants.
Arsenic and lead are also among the 73 elements in coal
smoke, and the quantities are worthy of commercial
production. Did you know that you get 100 times as much
radiation from a coal-fired power plant as from a nuclear
power plant?
Have you ever heard of background radiation? The natural
background radiation that has been there since the
beginning of time is 1000 times what you get from a
nuclear power plant or 10 times what you get from a coal-
fired power plant. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background_radiation
or http://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/publications/2000_1.html
If the safety level of nuclear power plants were
LOWERED to the same level as coal-fired power plants,
the resulting [nuclear] electricity would be very cheap
indeed and nuclear power would be very efficient.
I have NO connection with the nuclear power industry.
It is just that I would rather not go extinct because of global
warming. The Existential Risk that is virtually certain to
happen is the same as the End Permian mass extinction:
Hydrogen Sulfide. It is possible to avoid it, but the power
of wealth must be overcome. Coal is a $100 Billion [US]
industry in the US alone.
download from:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=00037A5D-
A938-150E-A93883414B7F0000&sc=I100322
from the October 2006 issue of Scientific American
Article: "Impact from the Deep"
"Strangling heat and gases emanating from the earth and
sea, not asteroids, most likely caused several ancient mass
extinctions. Could the same killer-greenhouse conditions
build once again? "
By Peter D. Ward
The last paragraph of the article says:
"The so-called thermal extinction at the end of the
Paleocene began when atmospheric CO2 was just under
1,000 parts per million (ppm). At the end of the Triassic,
CO2 was just above 1,000 ppm. Today with CO2 around
385 ppm, it seems we are still safe. But with atmospheric
carbon climbing at an annual rate of 2 ppm and expected to
accelerate to 3 ppm, levels could approach 900 ppm by the
end of the next century, and conditions that bring about the
beginnings of ocean anoxia may be in place. How soon
after that could there be a new greenhouse extinction? That
is something our society should never find out."
The hydrogen sulfide will finally put an end to the mining of
coal. Nuclear power is the safest available. 32 nations
have nuclear power plants. Only 9 have the bomb. The 3
that burn the most coal, the US, China and India all have
the bomb and nuclear power plants.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Who's Corporate Controlled?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: LeaderofMen on Jan 9, 2008 7:36 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The vast majority of the posters here are insisting that Obama is just a corporate tool. That he's duping everyone. That his inspiring talk is all hot air. That progressives are simply being fooled by his message. That his money is all coming from the largest corporations in the US.

Well. Let's see. Dick Cheney is owned by Halliburton, who in return gets no-bid contracts. Fox News is an extension of the Republican party. Nothing whatsoever is being done about climate change - in any substantial way - because Bush is a total tool of the oil companies. Our gov't is being outsourced to private companies who are all run by Republicans. The Republican corporate-owned media wants you to stay scared of terrorists - all the while the MAJORITY of them are Americans (to wit, antrax, school shootings, mall shootings, university shootings, etc. etc). 99% of the terrorism in this country is domestic and the Bush-Cheney team is helping to keep YOU fearful of the wrong people.

Show me where Obama is in bed with the military-industrial complex like those men. It is a fact that the largest corporations have given to Obama. It is NOT a fact that he is owned by them and MUST return the favor. Not like Bush-Cheney.

The majority of you here think Obama will somehow bring about the ultimate doom of the nation.

I laugh at your cynicism.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Obama's Corporate Controlled Posted by: hellofriends
» I think most of us agree Posted by: bthespoon

Comments are closed-

A charismatic Clinton
[Report this comment]
Posted by: bthespoon on Jan 9, 2008 9:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...brought us NAFTA, media conglomeration, set back health care reform eight more years, balanced the budget and did not have sex with that woman. Wonder what a charismatic Obama might do.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

A better bullshit artist...
[Report this comment]
Posted by: mark_proulx on Jan 9, 2008 9:29 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obama's ability to "inspire" reminds me of the definition of diplomacy: the ability to tell someone to go to Hell in a way that makes them look forward to the trip.

Obama and Clinton are nothing more than corporate shills. The only difference between them is that Obama uses verbal Vaseline.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Obama: Just Another Imperialist
[Report this comment]
Posted by: left_libertarian on Jan 12, 2008 3:09 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obama: Hopes to remove all troops from Iraq by 2013, but no pledge

Q: Gen. Petraeus and Pres. Bush indicated that in January 2009, there will be 100,000 troops in Iraq. What do you do?

A: I hope and will work diligently in the Senate to bring an end to this war before I take office. And it is very important at this stage, understanding how badly the president's strategy has failed, that we not vote for funding without some timetable for this war. If there are still large troop presences in when I take office, then

Q: Will you pledge that by January 2013, the end of your first term, there will be no US troops in Iraq?

A: I think it's hard to project four years from now, and I think it would be irresponsible. We don't know what contingency will be out there. I believe that we should have all our troops out by 2013, but I don't want to make promises, not knowing what the situation's going to be three or four years out.

Source: 2007 Democratic primary debate at Dartmouth College Sep 26, 2007

http://tinyurl.com/yfhqps

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

End Democracy
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Corruptian on Jan 13, 2008 8:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The beauty of democracy is that it presents a narrow range of possibilities under the pretense of unlimited options. Keep your focus between these margins, folks, or you'll be branded un-PC, a Nazi, a terrorist. Democracy is out-and-out "feel good" politics, and it will never tackle the most pressing issues of our time, such as overpopulation, because the solutions one logically deduces for Global Warming (tm) should be ones that don't compromise our economy. Let's just buy green products instead, and perhaps we'll even get to the point where McMansions pass out of vogue. Don't worry, you'll still get to have your electric car!

Ron Paul, while the most genuine candidate, suffers from this fact. Strict adherence to the Constitution is not logical, although it is quite evident that our Founding Fathers had a better sense of organic government than today's big shots. When working within the context of democracy, intelligence gets eclipsed by personality (the study of which has become apparent in the current presidential race--as if we're participating in some VR game show with not significant consequences, just try again after 4 years). Indeed, we allow the slovenly masses to hoist their favored buddy to the throne, after which we let the failure crowd surf back into relative obscurity and $20,000 lunches.

Perhaps nobody else finds this absurd, and you've all been scared into thinking that there are no other choices than democracy. Then again, most of you are probably atheists or soft Christians anyway. Yet despite the personal struggles that were no doubt emphasized in your history courses, all political systems prior to the advent of modern democracy conceptualized a whole and assured the maintenance thereof. Everything had a context, in contrast to the post-modernism that finds itself bedazzled by details and remains glued to the armchair. Life doesn't care if you are unsuccessful, sympathetic, or vote Green. If you do not work in accordance with its principles, however, you've consigned the society in which you live to a less-than honorable end (the banishment of any sense of "honor" notwithstanding).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Where is the picture?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Gramma Diana on Jan 13, 2008 6:21 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There used to be a picture of Obama standing behind Clinton. Now to see it you have to go to the Main page. The way he is looking at her, you can almost see the dislike he has for her. I remember when Newt Gingrish's Mom told a reporter that Newt called Hillary a Bitch when talking about her. Not too long after that there was a White House Party which was shown on C-Span. They showed Hillary welcoming Newt, she shook his hand and put a hand on his shoulder. Now that is a Lady, she knows how to be deplomatic. Obama wasn't very nice at the last debate the way he said that she was nice enough.

I'm backing Edwards but the more I find out about Obama, I don't know if I'll be able to back him if he is nominated. Like why is his pdf file on his foreign policy plan missing?

And I don't like the way John Edwards looks in the picture at MSNBC which asks if he'll go all the way. What are those men saying to him?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Alternet Comments:

Comments are closed-

Ask Senator Obama
[Report this comment]
Posted by: NoPCZone on Jan 8, 2008 12:33 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why did you vote for the NeoCon Bankruptcy Bill?

His answer should be very telling as it was, and is, indefensible. Money just doesn't talk- it screams. Watch you wallet, he's a DLC-type in all new clothes.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Ask Senator Obama Posted by: bthespoon
» RE: Ask Senator Obama Posted by: C-Dawg Blake
» what does change mean?? Posted by: particle61
» RE: what does change mean?? Posted by: bthespoon
» RE: no problem... Posted by: particle61
» Blah, blah, bla Posted by: jmooney
» RE: Ask Senator Obama Posted by: davescott
» RE: Ask Senator Obama Posted by: newtype_alpha
» Blah, blah, blah Posted by: jmooney
» RE: Ask Senator Obama Posted by: peacefullaim

Comments are closed-

Campaigning and governing are two different beasts.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Sojourner on Jan 8, 2008 1:05 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Everybody knows that. And why would anyone want to elect a person who is only a good campaigner? When elections are treated as beauty contests, which Americans invented and cannot get out of our system, then we have talent shows and swim suit competitions.

But beauty queens don't govern. They don't have the power to go to war and to decide who lives and who dies.

Yes, it is true that American voters have become so accustomed to salesmen that a good pitch nails us everytime. The comparison of Obama with Reagan, offered here as a positive lesson, turns me off.

Reagan broke the law when in office bordering on impeachable offenses far beyond Clinton. But his phoniness was so practiced, being the complete actor he was, we all got duped. If that is what Obama has to offer, no "we" and "you" will move this nation forward. We need someone who can govern.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Time to ask Obama some questions
[Report this comment]
Posted by: bodo on Jan 8, 2008 1:25 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The polls make it look like Obama is on course to bitchslap Hillary in the NH primary. If this happens, Hillary’s campaign will go into freefall, and she’ll have to go into full-time character assasination mode. Should be interesting.

America doesn’t want a neo-con Repulican as President. This means that if Hillary is TKOed in the New Hampshire primary, then Obama, (or possibly Edwards) will most likely be the next President of the USA.

So before his campaign momentum builds to unstopable force levels, I would suggest that NOW is the time for non-comatose Americans to start asking him the relevant questions.

Personally, I would most like to know the answers to the following:

1. Would you, Mr. Obama, as President, consider using the power of the pardon to pardon any Bush administration officials convicted under your Presidency, a la Gerald Ford?
2. Would you actively oppose a second investigation into 9-11?
3. Would you work to repeal the Military Comissions Act?
4. Please explain your support for the PATRIOT Act
5. Explain the term “State’s secrets”

Those are the questions I would most like answered, because the bare minimum we need from a new President is an undoing of the most serious damages wrought by the Bush administration, and jail time for any officials who are convicted of high crimes and misdemeanors. Anything short of that, and the Bush legacy will stand. Which means that even if a President like Obama doesn’t do anything rash, he’ll still leave us with a nation on the brink of dictatorship when he leaves office. This is my biggest fear about Obama; not that he’ll be a tyrannt, but that he won’t shut the door on tyranny that G.W. Bush has pried wide open. So let’s ask him.

-bacchus

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» His tax policy Posted by: bthespoon
» RE: Time to ask Obama some questions Posted by: peacefullaim

Comments are closed-

He Can Do It
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Tom Degan on Jan 8, 2008 1:36 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Do you remember the song from the 1960s, The Impossible Dream?

This is my quest,
to follow that star,
No matter how hopeless,
no matter how far
To fight for the right,
without question or pause
To be willing to march into hell
for a Heavenly cause
And I know if I only be true
to this glorious quest
Than my heart will lie peaceful and calm
when I'm laid to my rest

It was originally sung by the late Richard Kiley in the Broadway musical Man of La Mancha. It was a beautiful little tune that no one even remembers anymore - so jaded has our culture become. It was also the unofficial theme song of Robert F. Kennedy's ill-fated 1968 presidential campaign.

It might very well be the theme of Barack Obama's candidacy. This is not to imply that his dream of calling the White House "home" is an impossible dream, it's just that, given this country's sad history with respect to race, he does have somewhat of an uphill battle.

More than anyone else running today, his campaign may indeed be called a "glorious quest". God keep him safe.

Tom Degan
Goshen, NT
Making History In Iowa

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: He Can Do It-Not Posted by: NoPCZone
» RE: He Can Do It--BUNK! Posted by: militaryhater
» RE: He Can Do It--BUNK! Posted by: izquerdista
» RE: He Can Do It Posted by: 1984NOW!!!

Comments are closed-

Yes, But
[Report this comment]
Posted by: BlackbirdHighway on Jan 8, 2008 1:56 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Nice talk is great and all, but what is going to happen when the swiftboaters attack? Demos are better off with someone who is a really tough SOB, and will fight back vigorously.

Politics is not a walk through the garden. Look at the last couple elections and the way Gore and Kerry got torn to shreds. Running for president these days is more like being in a knife fight against a gang of street thugs. If he wins the nomination, I hope Obama is a lot tougher than he seems.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Stop attacking Michael Moore Posted by: PeaceLove

Comments are closed-

OBAMA for FASCIST CORPORATE CRIME
[Report this comment]
Posted by: LookOut on Jan 8, 2008 2:17 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
“There is a simple -- but profound -- reason why Barack Obama appears headed for the Democratic nomination, and it comes down to three simple words: I, we and you.”

Profound? I think not.

Let me rephrase for some connection to reality with 3 simple words: Fascist Corporate Power .

Obama is the latest strawman for criminal blood money empire with its endless, bogus protection racket “war on terror” that he supports (voting record) without reservation to the tune of dead Americans, mass genocide at Iraqi and a shredded Bill of Rights / constitution.

Of course he talks about “change” and wraps himself in the flag as all politicians have done since before ancient Rome. And of course this CFR performer is anything but an outsider to the status quo.

Whoever buys this act has zero knowledge of history outside what a monopoly MSM and cooked “education” establishment has drilled into them.

The “I we and you” and “Yes we can” leads nowhere but the politics of deception. It is merely about the latest pump-up and rah-rah brainwash campaign for the already gullible.

In sum, all politicians since JFK have been wholly owned actors for a fiat machine that betrays human life at the cost of doing monopoly business. A business that has no connection to free markets and even less with democracy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

He's For Real
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Joecheck on Jan 8, 2008 3:52 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Rosenfeld and Lakeoff are right in their analysis of Barack Obama's communication strength. I am an older white guy from Hyde Park in Chicago and met Obama in 1996 at the start of his political officeholding days. He is a left liberal, scores well on the usual liberal ratings. But he is not perfect. He is honest and the same way all the time.
This is not an act.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» No - He's Not "For Real"... Posted by: LookOut

Comments are closed-

Interesting analysis
[Report this comment]
Posted by: kepstein7777 on Jan 8, 2008 3:56 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I agree that the "we" approach is one of many things that sets Obama apart from candidates with more substance, stronger ideological positions, etc.

Kucinich is a perfect example. He may hold a lot of positions I agree with, but he is so full of himself that I can't stand to watch him sometimes.

Obama's charisma comes across even better in interviews and debates than in his glittering speeches. He has a way of sounding clear and decisive, yet easygoing and humble. And he's great at dodging questions without looking like he's dodging them.

I'm not so sure about the comparison to Reagan. He was more of a father figure than a team leader. That distinction could hurt Obama in a general election, because Republicans appeal more to our religious and authoritarian tendencies, especially in Red states.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Interesting analysis Posted by: PJAW
» RE: Interesting analysis Posted by: Basenjis
» RE: Interesting analysis Posted by: Lauren
» Vote for substance over style Posted by: GarrisonPayneLeonard38H

Comments are closed-

The Race Based Americon Idol Election
[Report this comment]
Posted by: KAEL on Jan 8, 2008 4:10 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You make the point that Obama's fans are being mesmerized by rhetoric. In a representative government, it should not be seen as a wrong move to use the word I. He will be in the Oval Office; we won't. I'm sure avoiding I will be convenient in two years when the failed idol will blame his problems on everyone but himself.

I feel like we're in a time warp and the US Presidency has just been staged as an episode of American Idol. To be terribly un-PC, do you think for a moment that America would be having this conversation if Clinton were African American and Obama not? Right minded but unthinking collective sympathy got us Israel, and now it will get us Obama.

The next generation has woken up. About time. They are sleep walking right now. The rest of us will come back to the conversation in four years when the fans and their idol have fully awakened to history.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Save school or save lives?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: anothername on Jan 8, 2008 4:40 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Wasn’t it the decade of the 1980's that was being called the “me” decade? This is the group of people under 30 who have been flocking to Obama, according to the media. Yes, make me feel good and happy.

On one of the threads yesterday I posted an observation late in the day. I looked at the entrance polls results from surveys conducted for the National Election Pool (e.g., ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN). Republicans chose their candidates based on sharing the values (43%) and candidate saying what he believes (33%). Democrats choose their candidates based on desire for change (51%). Only 19% of Democrats cast their support based on whether the candidate cares about them. In other words, the Democrats don’t care whether the change is going to make their lives better; they just want some undefined change.

I was talking to a friend who is a senior citizen and she said Obama’s tactics come straight from Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals. It’s been a while since I read the book and my copy is not yet unpacked from the last downward move, so I can’t add my own opinion to her observation. It is worth noting, however.

Obama is making very good use of his organizing talents. Organizing also includes the need to raise funds for projects, and Obama has done a good job of that, too. The problem with organizations, though, is with whom makes the decisions on what issues will be tackled and what positions will be taken. If the goal is to fix a pothole at an intersection, that is clear cut. But take a look at some of the national groups. The ACLU years ago supported the KKK’s right to have a march; the decision lost the group members and money, but the leaders stood by their decision. Where is an example of this type of character choice in Obama’s past?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Save school or save lives? Posted by: anothername
» Mandating purchase of insurance Posted by: bthespoon
» RE: Save school or save lives? Posted by: Basenjis
» RE: Save school or save lives? Posted by: polyquat50

Comments are closed-

Profound message? Nonsense.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: davescott on Jan 8, 2008 4:40 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"There is a simple -- but profound -- reason why Barack Obama appears headed for the Democratic nomination.." Well, I agree that it's simple: he's a young, atractive, articulate African-American, and many Dem primary voters find that combination appealing. Obama's "message" is often pablum. His promise to "end the politics of polarization" is right out of Bush's 2000 claim "I'm a uniter, not a divider" and it's about as convincing. The GOP has had leaders like Tom DeLay and Bush -- if you aren't polarized by these people, you've had a lobotomy. Obama's health care plan is inferior to those of Clintion and Edwards, both of whom have the courage to admit private insurance only works if coverage is mandatory. If Joe Biden had been delivering Obama's "profound" message, he'd still be in single digits in the polls. You overestimate American voters.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Profound message? Nonsense. Posted by: El Hombre Malo
» Hillary wants us to believe Posted by: bthespoon
» RE: Profound message? Nonsense. Posted by: davescott
» RE: Profound message? Nonsense. Posted by: davescott

Comments are closed-

The Audacity of False Hope
[Report this comment]
Posted by: bthespoon on Jan 8, 2008 5:19 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Please do not be fooled by silver-tongued rhetoric. If Obama or Hillary or any Republican wins the nomination we will not fix health care, we will not bring our troops home from Iraq, and we will stay the course on corporate control of our government's policies. I can get specific and detailed if anyone wants to read it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The Audacity of False Hope Posted by: Jigsaw65
» RE: The Audacity of False Hope Posted by: bthespoon

Comments are closed-

A Progressive Non-Obama Independent
[Report this comment]
Posted by: JohnOsborneNY on Jan 8, 2008 5:24 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why should we complete another 4 years of a `learn on the job' type with David Axelrod and his minions and have BEERs w/Obama? His logic and Obamarama’s repeat of change, change, change reminds me of the Soviet era promise of Gorbachev's policy of Perestroika or Glasnost baloney. He even claps for himself like a Soviet leader entering the walk-up area of Lenin’s mausoleum, honestly! Watch him do it anytime he enters a large crowd! It’s the same crap that GWB did 8-9 years ago with another 100 million and what did we get ... a moron, twin towers destroyed, 2 regional wars, a destroyed economy gutted by Chinese domination of `our markets' and a multi-trillion USD deficit. What is Barack, Oprah and the `Obama Girl's' ... including Mr. Axelrod going to do with that? What is the plan? Give us the specifics, right now - because I and other progressives want to know? Air, fluff and pseudo-Kennedy/King oratory won't pay the bills, repair health care, solve Iraq, get rid of the Neo-Cons for good? Making me feel good about the `Shining Beacon on the Hill America as One' is not reality and the Obama Camp knows it - I can't see the `Holy Grail Vision' but it sells well and Mr. Axelrod knows that (no details, just the fluff) - no doubt about it! If this is your `new version of a leader for 2009' ... then we might as well just let `Dubya' run for a 3rd term. Seriously - if your progressive ... wake up, smell the Java and look at the legislation that has been co-sponsored by Mr. Obama with GOP colleagues - you may be surprised to find he is more Republican-lite than any supporter would like to know or hear or admit. And no … I do not fit in with Hillary or Huckabee, but I also research the `historical record' instead of running off cliffs w/o knowing what or whom I am voting for!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

old white homeboy
[Report this comment]
Posted by: halweiner on Jan 8, 2008 5:28 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hey, listen. The Presidency is not the be-all and end all of the U.S. Government. At least the Founding Fathers and Mothers ( yes, Virginia, there are some women besides Hillary Rodham Clinton who have figured in the history of this country, but that is for another post ) understood this when they devised a rather good system of checks and balances.

It doesn't matter who you elect as President if you have an Old Boy and Girl Network in Congress which is sleeping in the missionary position under the Corporate American Rapists. ONLY a trial lawyer ( why is that a dirty word? Does your doctor treat you on a contingency fee basis? ) like Edwards can curb their appetites and enforce the plethora of anti-trust, consumer and civil rights laws ALREADY on the books. We don't have to pass another single law in my lifetime. All we have to do is enforce the ones we have. The likelihood of any President getting elected who can do this is about as big as a microdot containing no information whatsoever.

Wake up and smell the demise of the United States. We are the next Great Britain. We are the people our parents warned us about.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Which statistics? Posted by: bthespoon
» Another old study Posted by: bthespoon

Comments are closed-

"We" and "Us" Rhetoric
[Report this comment]
Posted by: peacelf on Jan 8, 2008 5:32 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Say whatever he wants, Obama represents the status quo of neoliberal politics: we'll see little in change in the politics of government by the corporation, for the corporation, of the corporation; little change in education as Obama wants to keep No Child Left Behind, the most nefarious education policy since Pinochet's standardized testing programs to indoctrinate young Chileans; no change in health insurance industries owning american health.

What will change is that a black man will be elected president if he wins. While a very important step in american politics, marking the end of white male dominance in the oval office, Obama still represents wealth and power. I'm not sure if the trade off is worth it.

peace

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

This comment has been removed from the site due to non-compliance with AlterNet's community policies.
» RE: Hiddenone Posted by: marteau
» RE: Hideous ... Posted by: gazooks
» RE: Hiddenone Posted by: jjdoggie
» RE: Hiddenone Posted by: EncinoM

Comments are closed-

Congressman Kucinich warned us: The front-runners are more stylistic than substantive
[Report this comment]
Posted by: nochicagoboys on Jan 8, 2008 5:54 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"The truth is actually words do inspire," Senator Obama said this past weekend. I agree, but words don't "transpire" -- they don't reveal the underlying motivation, or character, of a person. With all of this year's crop of potential presidential suitors, their previous administrative and/or legislative records, and resumes, should be the real litmus test of their values and intentions -- not what they say in canned and posed political rhetoric that's designed to appeal to basic human emotions and needs.

I, like many, don't want to be "sold". I don't need to be complimented and shored-up with allusions of inclusiveness and team-building. These are also the ploys that too many companies employ today in order to build a sense of belonging and teamwork among, generally, under-appreciated and underpaid workers. It's all a part of the "me too" masquerade that's a substitute for true solidarity and "ownership". I distain being patronized in order to fulfill the needs of the one patronizing me. I reject it, and shy away from it, yet unfortunately too may accept this selfish cajoling at face value.

Please, do yourself, and your fellow citizens, a favor. if you want to know the real story behind the style and affinity that so many people have been drawn to, research the Senator's record. The author cites the expertise of George Lakoff, who said Obama is one of the most honest people he has ever met -- a comment the author claims he's heard from others working on Obama's campaign. These people, I'm sure, are sincere and feel the truth of their convictions. But, why isn't the good Senator's voting record taken into account? Wouldn't that, also, be a criteria for determining his honesty? Also, why isn't Senator Obama's trail of campaign contributors signaling a red flag? It's a fact that he accepts almost as much corporate funding as Senator Clinton (and no, before you make any assumptions, I'm not making a pitch for her candidacy) and in some business sectors, more than any of the front-runners of the GOP. My question, and I ask this with all sincerity, why is this acceptable to most hard-and-fast supporters of Senator Obama?

Many of you who have read my comments over the past few months know that I'm an ardent opponent of corporatism and corporate-personhood. It is, in my opinion, not only the greatest threat to our democratic freedoms that we experience today, but is also the cause of most of the social ills that our legislators and government executives never seem to have the will to solve. Corporate-personhood is the disease; our social ills are only the symptoms.

As I mentioned in another article a few days ago during this Obama euphoria, it's a good thing Abraham Lincoln isn't running for president this year. I have read that he was a very poor orator, and had a high, unappealing, voice -- a far cry from the Madison Avenue presidency sought by most Americans today.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Great Question!... Posted by: dover23
» RE: Great Question!... Posted by: nochicagoboys
» RE: Great Question!... Posted by: dover23

Comments are closed-

Never Mind
[Report this comment]
Posted by: chlamor on Jan 8, 2008 6:06 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Never Mind

Never mind, for example, that Obama was recently hailed as a “Hamiltonian” believer in “limited government” and “free trade” by Republican New York Times columnist David Brooks, who praises Obama for having “a mentality formed by globalization, not the SDS.” Or that he had to be shamed off the “New Democrat Directory” of the corporate-right Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) by the popular left black Internet magazine Black Commentator (Bruce Dixon, “Obama to Have Name Removed From DLC List,” Black Commentator, June 26, 2003).

Never mind that Obama (consistent with Brooks’s description of him) has lent his support to the aptly named Hamilton Project, formed by corporate-neoliberal Citigroup chair Robert Rubin and “other Wall Street Democrats” to counter populist rebellion against corporatist tendencies within the Democratic Party (David Sirota, “Mr. Obama Goes to Washington,” the Nation, June 26). Or that he lent his politically influential and financially rewarding assistance to neoconservative pro-war Senator Joe Lieberman’s (“D”-CT) struggle against the Democratic antiwar insurgent Ned Lamont. Or that Obama has supported other “mainstream Democrats” fighting antiwar progressives in primary races (see Alexander Cockburn, “Obama’s Game,” the Nation, April 24, 2006). Or that he criticized efforts to enact filibuster proceedings against reactionary Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito.

Never mind that Obama “dismissively” referred—in a “tone laced with contempt”—to the late progressive and populist U.S. Senator Paul Wellstone as “something of a gadfly.” Or that he chose the neoconservative Lieberman to be his “assigned” mentor in the U.S. Senate. Or that “he posted a long article on the liberal blog Daily Kos criticizing attacks against lawmakers who voted for right-wing Supreme Court nominee John Roberts.” Or that he opposed an amendment to the Bankruptcy Act that would have capped credit card interest rates at 30 percent. Or that he told Time magazine’s Joe Klein last year that he’d never given any thought to Al Gore’s widely discussed proposal to link a “carbon tax” on fossil fuels to targeted tax relief for the nation’s millions of working poor (Joe Klein, “The Fresh Face,” Time, October 17, 2006).

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.

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. Or that he opposed Senator Russ Feingold’s (D-WI) move to censure the Bush administration after the president was found to have illegally wiretapped U.S. citizens. Or that he shamefully distanced himself from fellow Illinois Democratic Senator Dick Durbin’s forthright criticism of U.S. torture practices at Guantanamo. Or that he refuses to foreswear the use of first-strike nuclear weapons against Iran.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Never Mind Posted by: bbfmail
» RE: Never Mind Posted by: EdinIowa
» RE: Never Mind Posted by: primalscream
» RE: Never Mind Posted by: jmooney

Comments are closed-

The fly in the pronoun ointment
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Ellen Remore on Jan 8, 2008 6:14 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's all very well for Sen. Obama to campaign on a "we can" platform. It's a great marketing idea. However, because the mechanics of government have become so detached from the interests of the electorate, the truth of the matter is that "we," in a practical sense, are altogether powerless--irrespective of which candidate we put in the Oval Office. We The People have, for quite some time, seen the interests of campaign financiers and lobbyists taking precedence over our own. And all the clever rhetoric in the world will not alter that sorry situation. Thus, Senator Obama's good intentions may float away with the champagne bubbles on election night as soon as he goes mano-a-mano with the self-interest of Congress. (Unless, of course, we're willing to tolerate another "unitary presidency." I believe we are not.)

Mr. Obama certainly has charisma; there's no doubt of that. And I'm quite sure he's sincere. But personally, I vastly prefer a John Edwards who promises to "fight for me" against the corporate oligarchy that has effectively purchased--and jettisoned--our democracy. Mr. Edwards seems to be the only candidate who is willing to acknowledge that fact, and might actually be able to do something about it.

I suggest we tone down the dewy-eyed idealism just a tad; at least until we hear exactly how Obama plans to use "us" as soldiers to fight The Good Fight. Meanwhile, Mr. Edwards continues to appear the "Practical Pig" of the Three Little Front-Runners.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Is he all mouth or can he sting like a bee?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: rac on Jan 8, 2008 6:27 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obama’s language may get him the one-on-one with the Republican contenda, but once in office, he may prove him to be too conciliatory and too inclusive. He may not be the agent of change many of us hope he is. Edwards is more experienced fighting corporations. His instincts and experience make him the better choice to put in the White House.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

OBAMA
[Report this comment]
Posted by: jjdoggie on Jan 8, 2008 6:28 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A cynical bunch. After the article, which I agree with, I scroll down to the comments, ..... and what a cynical bunch of naysayers you are!
I am 63, and have lived through segregation in Montgomery, SEEN Rosa Parks cause the year-long bus boycott and change Montgomery. I came of age in the time of Vietnam, the worst part of it, Tet. I was in college in Maryland when King gave his great speech in D.C. I worked for womens' rights in the 70's. Raised two daughters who are strong and caring. Built houses for Katrina survivors. Lobbied and petitioned and marched against this atrocious war, vigiled against the Texas death penalty. I have lived in the best economy, and now, one of the worst.
It does not matter if I am white or black, gay or straight. I am for tolerance and equality.
I have SEEN what can be done when people CARE.
OBAMA FEELS it. He knows what can be done, and like Robert Kennedy, he knows that people can be inspired to JOIN him in the quest for the true American and global dream.
I only fear for his life. I do not know if this racist country will allow him to run and serve. He has the guts to put his dreams and plans in the fore for us. I intend to fight for him.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Then you fight for my death Posted by: bthespoon
» I'm sick Posted by: hellofriends
» RE: OBAMA-No We Can't Posted by: NoPCZone
» RE: OBAMA Posted by: Basenjis
» RE: OBAMA Posted by: bbfmail
» hey old dude Posted by: Iconoclast421
» Don't blame us for Bush Posted by: bthespoon

Comments are closed-

Dont Be Surprised
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Iconoclast421 on Jan 8, 2008 6:29 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Dont be surprised when, after getting elected, Obama is unable to accomplish anything. He wont stop the devaluation of your dollar. He likely wont even discuss it. Nor will he discuss how much money was stolen from social security to have that balanced budget that wont even be balanced anyway. Nor will he discuss the number of years, or months, that social security will be solvent. Nor will he address the fact that ethanol production raises food prices beyond whatever cost savings might be realized at the pump. Nor will he discuss the AQ Khan / Pakistan story with much honesty. Nor will he pledge to pardon Sibel Edmonds if she tells her entire story. Nor will he call you a moron for not knowing who is AQ Khan or Sibel Edmonds! He damn well should, if he was an honest politician!

He may come and take your guns though! And if you're really lucky, he'll come and confiscate your gold, just like FDR did. Oh, that's right, you dont have any gold... no need to worry about that then eh? Just exactly what DO you have left? Housing bubble, credit crunch, negative savings rate, peak oil, trade deficit, currency devaluation, >1% autism rates, horrible test scores, no education, no future, no ability to discern, no ability to tell truth from lie. I really hope your vote for Obama makes you FEEL GOOD! But you are living in a dreamland if you actually think he's gonna DO anything.

Dont be surprised if you get screwed by electing this guy if you dont do any research, dont think for yourself, and dont study history. Dont forget they paraded this guy around 4 years ago. They've been grooming him. Hillary = Obama. If you're following the campaign then you must keep in mind that the differences between the two are like the difference between the salt content in two pieces of dog poo... If you forget that fact then you may as well just spend your time chasing around Paris Hilton.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» wtf is a closet ron paul troll? Posted by: Iconoclast421

Comments are closed-

Vote Edwards..Why is the mainstream media ignoring him????
[Report this comment]
Posted by: MeridaLady on Jan 8, 2008 6:29 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Edwards is the only serious candidate that is not in anyone's pocket. Go to his website and read his speeches and his issues.

He tells it like it is, points fingers, and cites other politicians bad policies.

No Neocon money and they hate him!!!!!

Why do you think, although he came in second in Iowa, he's being ignored????????

I even read an article where he was labeled paranoid for stating he will illiminate the lobbyists from power in Washington.

He's the only candidate that will and can change the lobbyist control after winning the election in November and get rid of the unconstitutional Bushy reforms.

The changes that Edwards is proposing is everything, most of here, are so outraged about.

Please get real here and vote for Edwards. He can not only win against Neocons but will actually give the country back to the people.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

It's early, why are we inaugurating anyone?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: PJAW on Jan 8, 2008 7:09 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Perhaps Obama would be better than the simian creature that currently occupies the White House, but he clearly is not our best option (based on his voting record). The MSM and their corporate masters desperately want to give one of their chosen few the appearance of being destined to be the next president. They would be tickled to have anyone from the Republican camp, but they know the American people are almost certainly going Democratic this time around. So what are their options? Simple, select those who are least likely to upset the applecart and promote them to the front (Clinton, Obama and, to a lesser degree, Edwards) while marginalizing anyone who poses a threat to the status quo (Kucinich, Dodd, Richardson). This pattern has been followed for months now and unless something dramatic happens in New Hampshire today, such as a show of strong populist support for Kucinich, it is working smoothly.

Obama, if elected, will be hailed as a "historic change", and he will be, but primarily in a cosmetic sense. If you look closely at his record (as some have done here today), you will see that he might have the capacity to make you feel good, but with little promise for real change.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Montana Maven
[Report this comment]
Posted by: FeralCat on Jan 8, 2008 7:11 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The comments on this essay are not simple, and they are more profound than this insubstantial essay on Obama's simple but profound appeal. Obama steals things. He steals ideas, messages and whole titles. His "Audacity of Hope" was the name of a sermon by his minister the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and from what I read about him in the Rolling Stone, Wright makes Obama's rhetorical style "look like John Kerry." In the Illinois Senate he took an audacious health care plan and turned it into the "Adequate Health Care" Plan. The Boston Globe reports "Lobbyists praised Obama for taking the insurance industry's concerns into consideration." So the "we" of Illinois citizens got some watered down punk ass bill. But that didn't stop Obama praising himself for bringing "Republicans and Democrats together to solve problems that touch the lives of everyday people. I've taken on the drug and insurance companies and won." [notice the "I" Mr. Rosenfeld which is far more typical of Mr. Obama than his latest theft of Mr. Edwards message.]

MR. Edwards has consistently said "we" since I started reading and listening to him in 2003. Lately he's added and "I will fight for you" but he always refers to us as "brothers and sisters" and he knows he's part of the cause to restore democracy from a growing corporate fascist state that "has a stranglehold" on our way of life.
And together we will rise up and "we are the leaders we are looking for." Look at any of Edwards major policy speeches and you will see a PROFOUND, yes, profound set of visionary ideas and ways to achieve them. He is the candidate of substance which is part of a bigger picture.

Edwards doesn't care about being part of the establishment. He's been there, done that. Like FDR, He wants to take it on. It's clear to me that Obama desperately wants to belong. His whole life has been about achieving acceptance primarily for himself and he is on the verge of getting there.
And it's time for Professor Lakoff to retire quietly to California. "Honest?" I wouldn't use that word to describe Obama. Without a script, yes, he is blunt, sometimes snide as he was to Hillary the other night and a bit awkward at times which gives him an air of honesty. But you can't lie down with corporations like the nuclear power company Exelon and then look us in the eye and say that you are for "change" while you vote for new nuclear power plants. You don't vote for the Peru Free Trade that has worse labor provisions than NAFTA and be for "change". Come on.
P.S. Sorry for the cranky tone, but I grow weary of these fluff pieces and fluff candidates.
"I'm a uniter not a divider" in a smarter nicer package is not what I want. I want a revolution.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

It is all about "Me."
[Report this comment]
Posted by: douglashoyt on Jan 8, 2008 7:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obama knows people are self centered. Therefore, he makes sounds which promote the introspective: "It is all about me."

Clever laid.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Could Obama be the nex JFK?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Peacekeeper on Jan 8, 2008 7:46 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As I Read the Story that Compared Obama to Reagan, I thought About the Speach, John F Kenedy gave when He took office, those Famous words "Ask not what your Country can do for you, Ask what you can do for your Country". That speach led thousands of young people to join the Peace Corp, and those young peaple did make a difference in the world. John F Kennedy was also a Senator, before becoming President. Lets hope that Hate mongers, will not try to take his life, I hope America has gotten past All that.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Could Obama be the nex JFK? Posted by: davescott

Comments are closed-

Politics without Politics
[Report this comment]
Posted by: pdxstudent on Jan 8, 2008 8:25 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is what Obama is selling when he tries to tell us we've been doing it all wrong, having opposing and varied positions. No author, certainly not in this article, offers a substantive argument for why "we" is better than "I," especially when "we" implies an "I" that a generic, non-existent conglomerate of so-called liberal and conservative America. I say this as a full-blown Pinko too, because we should already take it for granted that when any politician says "I" they are saying "we," because that is what why WE elect them. It is when Obama, or anyone else really, turns around and starts saying what we already know that we should start to wonder, "but wait, why are you saying that? We know you're talking about "we" when you say "I," so why say it?"

He is playing to the degenerate ethos of the times that sees compromise as more important than the inherent value of a position. This is fundamentally the Capitalist ethos. It should sell, if anything, shoddy Chinese toys to gullible suburban children, not national presidential campaigns. Like I've pointed out before, the Democratic party is treating this nomination process like they were selling something at the market, and in the process to make the biggest profits they turn out a commodity-candidate whose chief value is in his ability to sell (not do anything we want once we've "bought" him). Is this not how consumerism works though? We are bombarded with commodities that effectively offer us happiness/security/wholeness; we know they cannot offer us these things, not given what we know about the commodities (face it, we know it's crap), and yet we still buy them because we hope they are what we know them not to be. This is the formula of ideology: not the old Marxist, naive 'false consciousness' of "They do not know, and they still do it," but "they very well know it (the shallowness of a commodity or a politician's rhetoric), and yet they STILL do it (by into the commodity or the politician)."

Joshua Holland has already gone down this line by suggesting that we hope Obama is not what we know him to be. This wishful thinking is what keeps consumerism and capitalism generally afloat and it is what will continue to sink the ship of our democracy. This is because Obama is against (democratic) politics when he denies the inherent antagonism that functions as the engine of politics. This is what I mean by politics without politics. This is also what Hitler meant when he sought to overcome all the social antagonisms of the German people by displacing them onto the Jews, making them THEE problem of society, and trying to get rid of them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Magic? I don't get that.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: EvilPoet on Jan 8, 2008 8:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm an atheist maybe that's why I don't get or see all this magic that everyone keeps going on and on about.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Magic? I don't get that. Posted by: aonghus36

Comments are closed-

Now the cat's out of the bag
[Report this comment]
Posted by: BitcoDavid on Jan 8, 2008 8:43 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You should never have written this article. Now that focus group tested, poll certified "Billary" will start saying "we" in all her prefab, made to order speeches.

I'm glad Obama is doing so well, but as all progressives out there know, Kucinich is the only truly Liberal (yes, I said it) candidate.

ABC did him, and us, a great disservice by denying him a spot at that so called debate. It was for that reason that I chose not to watch. However, it needs to be said, in all fairness, that I don't watch much TeeVee, at all, anymore, and even less so, ABC.

I did send them an E-mail, which they, as yet, have refused to answer.

Kucinich Rules, Dood!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

A failure to understand politics is evident in this thread.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Jan 8, 2008 8:52 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Look - lobbyists and employees of finance, real estate, and related firms have kicked down millions in bundled contributions to all of the leading candidates. Now, those lobbyists have backed off and are watching and waiting in the shadows.

Regardless of who wins the Democratic and Republican primaries, the lobbyists will still be waiting and watching.

The Republican operatives will roll out every dirty trick in the book as the electoral process proceeds, and have already started doing so. Their goals will be to reduce Democratic turnout and increase Republican turnout. Democratic political operatives will be doing the same thing - sort of a "George Lakoff vs. Frank Luntz" view of the electoral process. Talk is cheap, however, and Lakoff and Luntz are nothing but psychological manipulators, truth be told.

Let's say that Obama wins the primary and the presidency. People will cheer, we'll see a lot of self-congratulatory behavior, and people will go home to sleep, oh-so-happy about their victory over the Republican Party.

However, that's the point that the lobbyists wake up and roll into action - AFTER THE ELECTION. They'll contact all their people in the Obama campaign, they'll demand favors, and they'll push candidates for various government departments and cabinet posts who will protect their interests. They'll present pre-written bills that they want the President to support, and on and on. This is the case regardless of who wins.

So, if you want to affect the political process and see real change, you had better not go to sleep after the election is over. The real struggle is against the power of corporate lobbyists in politics - and the real fight will start the day AFTER the election.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» More Than That Though Posted by: pdxstudent

Comments are closed-

hope the game is over earlier
[Report this comment]
Posted by: brucerise on Jan 8, 2008 9:09 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
black president? woman president? then bush?????

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Obama IS the man!
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Bobsays on Jan 8, 2008 9:16 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Blair in the UK understood this as well: you aren't going anywhere being negative. You have to inspire people to do things. The problem is that most ultra-leftists are negative by their own nature. That's great for a bar-room bitch session, but it doesn't get anything done.

I believe people have two sides: a nasty, negative, violent side; and a beautiful, positive and sharing side. A good person and a good politician appeals to the later side.

Obama is generating a magical energy that people are vibing on.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

This article is a stupid summary of what Chris Matthews said last night
[Report this comment]
Posted by: hellofriends on Jan 8, 2008 9:17 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
thanks for being the MSM. i'm so inspired.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Why did you vote for the NeoCon Bankruptcy Bill?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: lamar on Jan 8, 2008 9:23 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There's a big problem with all of Obama's vague, communitarian rah rah rah. He's full of it. It's all "community this" and "community that" until it comes time to give more power to credit card companies. Which community to they belong to?

Why aren't people calling Obama out on this stuff?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Why do you support ethanol?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: bthespoon on Jan 8, 2008 9:36 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
is another one. Do you think he doesn't know that it takes more energy to produce than it saves, or that it costs a gallon of water per gallon of fuel? And what's this about the NUCULAR :-) thing?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

MR. WARM AND FUZZY
[Report this comment]
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Jan 8, 2008 9:42 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't know anything about Obama. He seems like an OK guy. He's written 2 bestselling books and that's all to his credit. But I'm not sure he can stand up to criticism. He seems overly sensitive and insecure. How can would handle a real challenge, not a staged debate. He's running on theatrics and nothing substantive. The "change" thing is already old. Change from what to what. Thanks, ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

The Obama Ether or Same old wine in a brand new bottle..
[Report this comment]
Posted by: TJ-stars4peace on Jan 8, 2008 10:24 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Well reading the comments here I am glad to see that I am not the only one who has not fallen under the Obama Ether..

After all these terrible years of the Bush Mafia you would think we could hve developed a candidate with a real agenda and real specific solutions on a grand scale..

Also I for one am not about to make nice with these fucking Republican fascist bastards..

If we are in any way a mortal nation they must be crushed and splintered and exposed for all the harm they have done so we can really move on into a better future..for the 21st Century..

Obama will make deals and take half measures and in most cases those who have suffered under the Bush administration will be making all the concessions..

After 8 years of Bush We The People are being put in neutral and left spinning our wheels with Obama..

Simple as that..

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

FRANKLY, I WANT TO HEAR MORE "I WILL"
[Report this comment]
Posted by: tylerstmark on Jan 8, 2008 10:56 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The idea that any candidate using the "we" instead of the "I" is somehow the better candidate is idealistic but merely semantics and, to my mind, political fluff--which we don't need at this time.

The simply fact is WE THE PEOPLE can and will have very little to do with the actual shifting of our country's direction or the mending of the overwhelming damage that Bush will have done to this country in just eight years.

Yes, we can cheer the new administration on, make our personal opinions known, and even hope to influence that administration through our local and state representatives--but make no mistake; the real work will be done by one person in tandem with a cooperative Congress who has come out of its political coma.

Any professional spin doctor will tell you that the use of the "we" in political speech making does exactly what the author of the article "Yes, We Can" implies. However, its a political given that this is an editorial "we" and bears little resemblance to the administrative machine once the candidate is elected.

Frankly, I want to hear more "I will" followed by tangible and constructive solutions not vague political rhetoric. I want to hear a candidate say simply and specifically what he (or she) will do to get us out of Iraq, fix the economic quagmire and corporate despotism that has occurred in this country, and how universal healthcare will be a reality for each and every American.

I don't know about you but I, unfortunately, have no personal power to implement these goals--no matter how romantic the notion is. I require a President who indeed says "I will" not "We can."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Obama..the Tupperware tribe
[Report this comment]
Posted by: militaryhater on Jan 8, 2008 11:16 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yes, ride the wave..join the celebration. Live on catchy phrases...'WE' will over come! We...We we.. BUT the WE is I. The President decides..WE never comes into it. They have their own agenda. I am still shell shocked the Americans are so dumb to sell out to this corporate Lap dog...trained and groomed to win the Presidency. A man who doesn't even represent his state in the Senate and never shows up to VOTE. I guess controlling the Media is POWER. Play the message over and over and people will believe it..afterall, the Media 'ALWAYS' tells the truth..don't they?

Wake up America and quit voting Beauty...I guess Americans are alot like Forest Gump...stupid is as stupid does. Turn off the TV...CNN, FOX News...etc. and start delving into the true minds of these candidates. Stop being sheep and be led over a cliff. Wake UP..stop acting like MEDIA ZOMBIES!

I see the Tupperware cheering that Obama's team is doing..rile 'em up with energy and no substance! Lead them in cheers..get them caught up in the energy of nothing. They will be so brainwashed with catchy phrases, they will blindly vote against themselves. A man who will not represent them...but only the rich.

HE VOTES RICH PEOPLE. He votes against his own African American people...he is corporate..he voted for the side of Financial services...HE VOTES against average Americans...the Middle class and Poverty. Read between the lies..SEE THE MAN In WOLVES CLOTHING before it is too late.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

kucinich's weakness
[Report this comment]
Posted by: davescott on Jan 8, 2008 11:41 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What Kucinich has not done is shown any capacity to raise his poll numbers above 1 percent or get a single primary delegate.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: kucinich's weakness Posted by: hellofriends

Comments are closed-

Hillary the Scarriest of the Dems; radioactive Obama next
[Report this comment]
Posted by: herbal on Jan 8, 2008 12:01 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But campaign for nice man Obama? He is misinformed and is showing sings of having joined the Corporatists. Obama needs to be rejected because of his endorsement for Nuclear Energy.

There is absolutely no long term comparison between Nuclear and any other polluting source of energy. Why? The new Nuclear proponents are only short term thinkers. Can Asteroid miner and Nuke shill Comby take responsibility for the 146,000 year half life of the most virulently carcinogenic, Plutonium? Can the US government, the longest living Republic government in history (only 230 years) that has now come to an end, make any guarantees? They are absurd to ignore the fact that all waste and toxins of radionucleides are absolutely and unavoidably cumulative. They will raise the background radiation levels worldwide. Review the research of epidemiologist, Rosalie Bertells, MD, on effects of low level radiation. Death.

The solution mainly is a social one. Mankind must take responsibility for not confusing wants with needs. Energy use must first be reduced. There simply is no excuse for promoting Nuke.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Hopeful Idealist?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: whatzaname on Jan 8, 2008 1:12 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I, too, was enamored of Barack Obama when he first emerged on the national scene, but after buying his book, researching his "platform" and listening to him speak, I've come to the conclusion that he's full of hope, but not much else. I need someone willing to FIGHT for our country, since Big Business is fighting against us, every step of the way. Obama would make a great president-in-training, aka Vice President, and I'd vote for him for President if he was the Democratic nominee, given the fact that there is certainly no one in the Republican line up that I could stomach. But I don't think his idealistic hopefulness is going to win this election for the Democratic party, leaving this nation to rot under at least 4 more years of Corporate Republican Rule.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» My problem is if Obama wins Posted by: bthespoon

Comments are closed-

Thank YOU!
[Report this comment]
Posted by: LeaderofMen on Jan 8, 2008 2:22 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thanks for making this linguistic distinction. It appears that Obama has read, heard of, or intuitively understands language or at least what George Lakoff has written about.

This is precisely why people love the man. He speaks an entirely different language than what everyone else is speaking.

Compare and contrast Obama-speak with the complete nonsense that comes out of Bush's mouth.

I rest my case.

On Thursday night I will be seeing Barack speak live here in Chicago at a cafe in Lincoln Park. I freakin' can't wait to hear him live and in person.

I will be able to say that I was there to hear history being made.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Thank YOU! Posted by: EdinIowa

Comments are closed-

6 months ago
[Report this comment]
Posted by: anothername on Jan 8, 2008 2:24 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
After the Iowa caucuses, I heard paid commentator after paid commentator express shock at how the inevitable did not happen. I also started seeing numerous essays on AlterNet about the leading candidates. Yet, on the Democratic side, all of this was obvious 6 months ago. Why did we not have these discussions then? Even on the Republican side, where the national press is tripping over itself at Mitt Romney's showing, it was obvious Mitt was ahead only because nobody else had received enough attention, yet.

Here's a lesson from Bob the Builder. Barack Obama says "Yes, we can," but only talks about hope over fear and change. On Bob the Builder, the questions are much more specific. Farmer Brown needs a new fence. "Can we build it?!" "Yes, we can!" "The school needs an addition." "Can we build it? Yes, we can."

I'd be much happier hearing Barack pull in a bit of John Kerry (hey, stop that laughter; okay, I'm laughing, too). E.g., "Can we raise incomes?" I'd be much happier with specific categories of change.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Who Are You People????
[Report this comment]
Posted by: LeaderofMen on Jan 8, 2008 2:40 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Who the F are all of you negative people? Where is your sense of what's going on in this country RIGHT THIS VERY MOMENT? The Bush neocon cabal has raped and pillaged this country until your legs are up in the air saying: put in in right here.

But all you can do is disparage Obama.

Obama represents the complete opposite of what we have in this country right this very second. The opposite. Have you all forgotten what it's like to like your country? Have you all forgotten what it's like to be asked to climb on board and be inspired?

Do you want us to work with the rest of the world to manage climate change? You're not going to get it while ANY Republican is in office. Do you want jobs to stay in this country? You're not going to get it while ANY Republican is in office. Do you want a shift away from the mentality that has split this country apart at the seams? You're not going to get it while ANY Republican is in office.

Hillary is bought and paid for by pharmaceutical companies. She's not going to give you healthcare. Edwards might be able to do it but he's being manipulated by large corporations. Not that he's an awful candidate. Hey, just the opposite. He could easily be the man to handle all of that and more.

But to disparage the Obama wave as being somehow 'fascist' or corporate controlled, or anti-American, or 'he's not for Illinois', etc. is to completely ignore the message. The meaning and the message. The language, the meaning and the message.

Dig deeper people. You're just not used to this kind of talk. It's unthinkable in this day and age because of what Bush, Kristol, Wolfowitz and the rest of the neocons have done to our psyches.

Get over yourselves. We have a winner on our hands. Give the man the opportunity to change this country.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Only because Posted by: bthespoon
» Think About... Posted by: pdxstudent
» To not be afraid... Posted by: bthespoon
» The Problem Posted by: pdxstudent
» What is the MSM? Posted by: bthespoon
» The Mainstream Media Posted by: pdxstudent
» Just So You Know Posted by: pdxstudent
» oh.... Posted by: bthespoon
» RE: Who Are You People???? Posted by: EdinIowa
» RE: Who Are You People???? Posted by: jmooney

Comments are closed-

Breaking "news" from a trailer park in Arkansas
[Report this comment]
Posted by: CharliePatton on Jan 8, 2008 3:49 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Former president Bill Clinton calls Barack Obama, "the biggest fairy tale ever."

Video from ABC "news".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Why are All of You Still Undecided and Screaming?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: LeftCoastProgressive on Jan 8, 2008 3:56 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I read an article today and it really got me thinking. Why am I still undecided on the presidential candidates? I know one thing, it's not because I don't know enough about them. So, why? I never really thought about why I am having so much trouble with this decision, until today. In the past I would have already come to some solid conclusions. I keep telling myself that I'm waiting for someone to say something that convinces me beyond any doubt that he/she is the one.

Basically, after the last seven years of dumbshit, killer-of-ragheads, George W. Bush, I have become very distrusting of politicians. Granted, I've always been distrusting to some degree, but it's much more now. Even though I didn't vote for Bush, many others did. They voted for him because he was "likable". This is something I will never understand. Why would anyone use "likability" as a reason to vote for a president.

Looks are deceiving...And let's face it, "likable" people might seem that way to your face, but not have any trouble turning around and knifing you in the back. Don't we all know someone like that? Words can be deceiving, and most of all - politicians can be very deceiving. What we need is a debate where all the candidates are simultaneously hooked up to lie detectors with huge meters displayed above their heads. Because after Bush, the single most important quality to me in a president...is Trust. I might love every opinion a particular candidate has on the issues, but in the end if they are lying, none of those promises mean anything.

CHANGE is the new "buzz" word the politicians are throwing around. And yes...Change would be great. But what this country really needs is TRUST. Who can we trust? Listen to what they say and HOW they say it. Then close your eyes and think of him/her as President. Listen while he tells an international audience what he will do as PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. Does it ring true in your heart? Then lets put that person in the Whitehouse!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» TRUST Posted by: Cathyc

Comments are closed-

Not...
[Report this comment]
Posted by: fifthworld on Jan 8, 2008 5:10 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obama, as Glen Ford noted yesterday, is a "war ho". He's the corporate elite in slightly darker skin -- so big deal! Get real America, and do the digging. Wake up from naivete.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Hillary's tears and "iron my shirt" tactics are working this evening
[Report this comment]
Posted by: haystack1317 on Jan 8, 2008 5:13 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I believe that Hillary's tears yesterday and the incredible airplay they got just may turn the tide in NH as she does better than expected. I also believe that the two guys with the "Iron My Shirt" signs were plants. I believe it was a stunt to get media attention and to make Hillary's obstacles appear great and rally women behind her. I wouldn't put anything past them. So, between her tears and her sudden good fortune in being given an opportunity to remind Democrats she's fighting sexism, she's on the go again. Frightening, to me. Remember, this is not about impressing Republicans at this point, just Dems and Inds. So, she's shown her human side, won our symphathy on all counts, reminded us of latent sexism, and turned it around. I've got that sickening feeling in my stomach thinking about how the mainstream media covered this. Who's been a better friend to media consolidation than the Clintons?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

So You Don't Want Obama, Do You Prefer Huckabee (aka Bush Chap II) or McCain (war man)?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: sofla100 on Jan 8, 2008 5:24 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We on the left have to be very careful on how we approach things. Now, before getting on the Obama bandwagon, it is true that Obama knows which way the bread is buttered. Wall Street and the corporate boys are funneling money into him. The hedge funds, banks, credit card companies, they sure are not going to take any chances. And, Obama is going to have to oblige them, that is just the way the game is played. So, we can knock off the true believer stuff, you know, "Obama is the real thing,...etc." If you really believe that, I can sell you land on the moon. Now, next we have to deal with reality. Kuicinch is going nowhere in this race, so forget about that. The Repubs. will probably float either Huckabee or McCain. Huckabee is Bush, Chapter II. The wars, torture, and a collapsing economy as even more money is funneled into the upper classes. Do we want that? As for McCain, he will send even more troops into Iraq and be very aggressive with US forces around the globe. He will probably want to expand NATO right into the Moscow suburbs if he can, so he invites more war and military escalation. Again, do we want that? So, we are much better off with Obama. Of course, a corporate man, like most of them all are. But a practical man, not one likely to start wars and a man not plugged into the Evangelicals and their mission for a "decent America." So, yes, I will support Obama as the Democratic nominee. I know the rhetoric he spews means little, national health care for example going nowhere because all the insurance companies have be dealt in. But, at least, we shouldn't see a war with Iran, stripping of women's rights, and more people around the globe disappearing into Guantanamo or being roasted on a spigot in a CIA hellhole somewhere. And, when you travel abroad, you won't have to lie anywhere and say you are from Canada or something, so people will at least talk with you.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» That's why we need Edwards... Posted by: bthespoon

Comments are closed-

same whore different face...
[Report this comment]
Posted by: digitalfrenzy on Jan 8, 2008 5:49 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You people are pathetic...liberals, republicans, everyone. Your country was bought and sold a long time ago. To get all wrapped up in this charade is laughable at best. You are all wasting your time. If you don't think the next leader has been chosen, you are a simple, gullible, sheep. If you can present me with a serious fact based rebuttal to my statement, I welcome it with open mind, ears and heart.

You are all squabbling over that scraps that corporate america has left you. you are saps.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: same whore different face... Posted by: izquerdista

Comments are closed-

Your Name Here
[Report this comment]
Posted by: HeKnew on Jan 8, 2008 7:55 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If you've never heard the Good Cop feelgood line of campaign bull before it can only mean that you're too young and this is your first campaign cycle, you're too old and have Alzheimers, or you're in the middle and you're so delusional that you'll probably walk into a gas station rest room thinking its a polling place, pull on the towel dispenser and go home congratulating yourself that you voted for Obama.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

VOCA, now !
[Report this comment]
Posted by: HeKnew on Jan 8, 2008 8:01 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A Vote of Confidence Amendment will enable the American voting public to dismiss any elected official who fails in their obligation to serve the people of the United States.

VOCA, now

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Obama et al are corporate robot Dems. Kucinich OWNS!
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Clockwise Cat on Jan 8, 2008 8:09 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm so tired of AlterNet smooching the butts of Republican Lite Dems.

Just watch DK's speech at the NH Democratic Party. Why would you choose anyone else?!?!?!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Madison Avenue Obama
[Report this comment]
Posted by: TRC on Jan 8, 2008 8:42 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I heard Obama's victory speach after the Iowa Caucuses. I was amazed that he could say NOTHING and get a crowd worked up. Hope and Change and, of course, pandering to the "American People". That was it! He is well packaged (one might say "new and improved") but he just what Wall Street, Madison Avenue, and Corporate Welfare recipients need to carry-on - a convincing illusion.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

extinction or the collapse of civilization due to global warming
[Report this comment]
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Jan 9, 2008 1:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The next president will have to take drastic action to prevent our extinction or the
collapse of civilization due to global warming . Great damage has been done, but
we still have 8 years before natural positive feedbacks lead to our extinction. Sea
level will continue to rise even if we disappear right now, but that is "minor"
compared to poison gas bubbling out of the ocean and killing almost everything.
See the chart on page 274 of "Six Degrees" by Mark Lynas. We have until 2015
to BEGIN REDUCING our total CO2 output and we have until 2050 to actually
reduce our CO2 output by 90%. The curve has to start down by 2015, not we
have to think about it by then. The peak of our CO2 production has to happen in
the next 8 years. Sorry, but we can't wait for research, no matter how interesting.
We have to implement what we know right now. The only technology we have
right now to replace coal fired power plants is nuclear power plants. I like solar,
wind, hydro, and geothermal, but all of them together cannot replace the base load
capacity of coal. Sorry, but nuclear is the only option. If we don't follow the
schedule in Six Degrees, we will encounter positive feedbacks which will take the
control of the climate out of our hands. Civilization may fall anyway well before
2050, but we can avoid going extinct by 2100. We have to hold the CO2 level to
400 parts per million to have a 75% chance of avoiding the positive feedbacks.
The natural positive feedbacks are explained in Six Degrees.

Nuclear power is NOT dangerous. Coal is the most dangerous and radioactive
source of electricity. Nuclear power can save us from extinction. The
comparison has to be with extinction. Do you understand what the word "extinct"
means? If we keep burning FOSSIL fuels containing CARBON, EVERY
PERSON will be DEAD. THERE WILL BE ZERO SURVIVORS.
EXTINCTION means NO MORE HOMO SAPIENS, EVER. NOT EVEN the
worst possible nuclear war, a "general exchange" between the United States and
the old Soviet Union could achieve the extinction of Homo Sapiens. That would
mean exploding 40,000 H bombs all at once in the old days or maybe only 20,000
H bombs now.

The simultaneous deaths of 6,400,000,000 people would not even be noticeable in
the geologic record. Human population would rebound too fast for the dip to be
noticeable in the rocks. But extinction would clearly be noticed by some future
space alien or future intelligent earth species geologist. He would find no more
humans after the extinction event.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Plutonium is good fuel
[Report this comment]
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Jan 9, 2008 1:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Everything, including yourself, is made of atoms. All atoms have nuclei. You
have many atomic nuclei inside yourself since you are made of atoms. The
simplest nucleus is one proton. That would be a hydrogen atom. An oxygen
atom has 8 protons and either 8, 9 or 10 neutrons in its nucleus. All other nuclei
also have neutrons. Uranium has 92 protons and either 143 or 146 neutrons. If it
has 143 neutrons it is U235. If it has 146 neutrons, it is U238. Nuclear fuel is
only 2% to 8% U235, the kind that fissions/divides, providing energy. The rest is
U238 that doesn't fission. A nuclear reaction happens when a neutron is captured
by a nucleus. If a U235 nucleus captures a neutron, the nucleus and the atom split
approximately in half and 3 more neutrons are released because the 2 smaller
nuclei don't need so many neutrons. If a U238 nucleus captures a neutron, it
ejects an electron and the neutron becomes a proton. The U238 thus becomes
Plutonium 239. Plutonium is fissionable, which means that plutonium is a good
fuel. If you add Thorium to the fuel, you can make more fissionable uranium. If
a Thorium atom nucleus captures a neutron, it ejects an electron and the neutron
becomes a proton. The Thorium atom thus becomes U233. U233 is fissionable.

Depending on the design of the reactor and the mix of the fuel, the fuel % in the
reactor can either grow or shrink. It is kind of like the fuel gauge can go either up
or down, but it is more like the reactor can run hotter or cooler over time. The
temperature is kept constant by adjusting the control rods. A breeder reactor is a
reactor designed to make the fissionable part of the fuel load grow rapidly.
Normally, fuel is left in the reactor for about 10 years, or 10% of the fuel is
replaced each year. The reprocessing step sorts out the fuel and puts the
percentage of fissionable fuel back to the starting percentage. In the process,
plutonium may be removed and either wasted or used as fuel. If we add thorium
to the fuel, we can make more uranium than we put in. Since the earth contains
more than twice as much thorium as uranium, it would be wise to make thorium
into uranium. By reprocessing nuclear fuel, we get an enormous, many centuries
long fuel supply without doing much mining. Only minute amounts of un-
enriched uranium or thorium need to be added to lower the percentage of
fissionable fuel. The products of fission are also removed when fuel is
reprocessed. These are just other ordinary atoms that are no longer useful as fuel.
The quantity is very small. We should reprocess fuel to keep the fuel load at the
correct percentage of fissionable fuel for the particular reactor design. Instead, we
go through the expensive process of making more "virgin" fuel for each new fuel
load. This greatly increases the price you pay for electricity. We are not
reprocessing nuclear fuel for political reasons.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Obama and high URANIUM coal from Illinois
[Report this comment]
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Jan 9, 2008 1:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obama pushed for more mining of Illinois coal. I hope that
was only in the past. The problem is that Illinois coal
contains up to 103 parts per million URANIUM. That is
103 time the URANIUM in average coal. Did you know
that, using average coal, enough URANIUM goes up the
smokestack or into the cinders of a coal-fired power plant
to Fully fuel a nuclear power plant with the same output?
See:
http://www.ornl.gov/ORNLReview/rev26-
34/text/coalmain.html
If breeding of thorium into uranium and using plutonium as
fuel are allowed, enough uranium and thorium go up the
smokestack of one coal-fired power plant to fully fuel 500
nuclear power plants of the same size. That isn't all that
goes up the smokestacks of coal-fired power plants.
Arsenic and lead are also among the 73 elements in coal
smoke, and the quantities are worthy of commercial
production. Did you know that you get 100 times as much
radiation from a coal-fired power plant as from a nuclear
power plant?
Have you ever heard of background radiation? The natural
background radiation that has been there since the
beginning of time is 1000 times what you get from a
nuclear power plant or 10 times what you get from a coal-
fired power plant. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background_radiation
or http://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/publications/2000_1.html
If the safety level of nuclear power plants were
LOWERED to the same level as coal-fired power plants,
the resulting [nuclear] electricity would be very cheap
indeed and nuclear power would be very efficient.
I have NO connection with the nuclear power industry.
It is just that I would rather not go extinct because of global
warming. The Existential Risk that is virtually certain to
happen is the same as the End Permian mass extinction:
Hydrogen Sulfide. It is possible to avoid it, but the power
of wealth must be overcome. Coal is a $100 Billion [US]
industry in the US alone.
download from:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=00037A5D-
A938-150E-A93883414B7F0000&sc=I100322
from the October 2006 issue of Scientific American
Article: "Impact from the Deep"
"Strangling heat and gases emanating from the earth and
sea, not asteroids, most likely caused several ancient mass
extinctions. Could the same killer-greenhouse conditions
build once again? "
By Peter D. Ward
The last paragraph of the article says:
"The so-called thermal extinction at the end of the
Paleocene began when atmospheric CO2 was just under
1,000 parts per million (ppm). At the end of the Triassic,
CO2 was just above 1,000 ppm. Today with CO2 around
385 ppm, it seems we are still safe. But with atmospheric
carbon climbing at an annual rate of 2 ppm and expected to
accelerate to 3 ppm, levels could approach 900 ppm by the
end of the next century, and conditions that bring about the
beginnings of ocean anoxia may be in place. How soon
after that could there be a new greenhouse extinction? That
is something our society should never find out."
The hydrogen sulfide will finally put an end to the mining of
coal. Nuclear power is the safest available. 32 nations
have nuclear power plants. Only 9 have the bomb. The 3
that burn the most coal, the US, China and India all have
the bomb and nuclear power plants.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Who's Corporate Controlled?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: LeaderofMen on Jan 9, 2008 7:36 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The vast majority of the posters here are insisting that Obama is just a corporate tool. That he's duping everyone. That his inspiring talk is all hot air. That progressives are simply being fooled by his message. That his money is all coming from the largest corporations in the US.

Well. Let's see. Dick Cheney is owned by Halliburton, who in return gets no-bid contracts. Fox News is an extension of the Republican party. Nothing whatsoever is being done about climate change - in any substantial way - because Bush is a total tool of the oil companies. Our gov't is being outsourced to private companies who are all run by Republicans. The Republican corporate-owned media wants you to stay scared of terrorists - all the while the MAJORITY of them are Americans (to wit, antrax, school shootings, mall shootings, university shootings, etc. etc). 99% of the terrorism in this country is domestic and the Bush-Cheney team is helping to keep YOU fearful of the wrong people.

Show me where Obama is in bed with the military-industrial complex like those men. It is a fact that the largest corporations have given to Obama. It is NOT a fact that he is owned by them and MUST return the favor. Not like Bush-Cheney.

The majority of you here think Obama will somehow bring about the ultimate doom of the nation.

I laugh at your cynicism.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Obama's Corporate Controlled Posted by: hellofriends
» I think most of us agree Posted by: bthespoon

Comments are closed-

A charismatic Clinton
[Report this comment]
Posted by: bthespoon on Jan 9, 2008 9:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...brought us NAFTA, media conglomeration, set back health care reform eight more years, balanced the budget and did not have sex with that woman. Wonder what a charismatic Obama might do.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

A better bullshit artist...
[Report this comment]
Posted by: mark_proulx on Jan 9, 2008 9:29 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obama's ability to "inspire" reminds me of the definition of diplomacy: the ability to tell someone to go to Hell in a way that makes them look forward to the trip.

Obama and Clinton are nothing more than corporate shills. The only difference between them is that Obama uses verbal Vaseline.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Obama: Just Another Imperialist
[Report this comment]
Posted by: left_libertarian on Jan 12, 2008 3:09 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obama: Hopes to remove all troops from Iraq by 2013, but no pledge

Q: Gen. Petraeus and Pres. Bush indicated that in January 2009, there will be 100,000 troops in Iraq. What do you do?

A: I hope and will work diligently in the Senate to bring an end to this war before I take office. And it is very important at this stage, understanding how badly the president's strategy has failed, that we not vote for funding without some timetable for this war. If there are still large troop presences in when I take office, then

Q: Will you pledge that by January 2013, the end of your first term, there will be no US troops in Iraq?

A: I think it's hard to project four years from now, and I think it would be irresponsible. We don't know what contingency will be out there. I believe that we should have all our troops out by 2013, but I don't want to make promises, not knowing what the situation's going to be three or four years out.

Source: 2007 Democratic primary debate at Dartmouth College Sep 26, 2007

http://tinyurl.com/yfhqps

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

End Democracy
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Corruptian on Jan 13, 2008 8:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The beauty of democracy is that it presents a narrow range of possibilities under the pretense of unlimited options. Keep your focus between these margins, folks, or you'll be branded un-PC, a Nazi, a terrorist. Democracy is out-and-out "feel good" politics, and it will never tackle the most pressing issues of our time, such as overpopulation, because the solutions one logically deduces for Global Warming (tm) should be ones that don't compromise our economy. Let's just buy green products instead, and perhaps we'll even get to the point where McMansions pass out of vogue. Don't worry, you'll still get to have your electric car!

Ron Paul, while the most genuine candidate, suffers from this fact. Strict adherence to the Constitution is not logical, although it is quite evident that our Founding Fathers had a better sense of organic government than today's big shots. When working within the context of democracy, intelligence gets eclipsed by personality (the study of which has become apparent in the current presidential race--as if we're participating in some VR game show with not significant consequences, just try again after 4 years). Indeed, we allow the slovenly masses to hoist their favored buddy to the throne, after which we let the failure crowd surf back into relative obscurity and $20,000 lunches.

Perhaps nobody else finds this absurd, and you've all been scared into thinking that there are no other choices than democracy. Then again, most of you are probably atheists or soft Christians anyway. Yet despite the personal struggles that were no doubt emphasized in your history courses, all political systems prior to the advent of modern democracy conceptualized a whole and assured the maintenance thereof. Everything had a context, in contrast to the post-modernism that finds itself bedazzled by details and remains glued to the armchair. Life doesn't care if you are unsuccessful, sympathetic, or vote Green. If you do not work in accordance with its principles, however, you've consigned the society in which you live to a less-than honorable end (the banishment of any sense of "honor" notwithstanding).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Where is the picture?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Gramma Diana on Jan 13, 2008 6:21 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There used to be a picture of Obama standing behind Clinton. Now to see it you have to go to the Main page. The way he is looking at her, you can almost see the dislike he has for her. I remember when Newt Gingrish's Mom told a reporter that Newt called Hillary a Bitch when talking about her. Not too long after that there was a White House Party which was shown on C-Span. They showed Hillary welcoming Newt, she shook his hand and put a hand on his shoulder. Now that is a Lady, she knows how to be deplomatic. Obama wasn't very nice at the last debate the way he said that she was nice enough.

I'm backing Edwards but the more I find out about Obama, I don't know if I'll be able to back him if he is nominated. Like why is his pdf file on his foreign policy plan missing?

And I don't like the way John Edwards looks in the picture at MSNBC which asks if he'll go all the way. What are those men saying to him?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

 
Advertisement
From The Blog