Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Where Would Obama Take the Nation?

By Robert Parry, Consortium News. Posted February 6, 2008.


We could expect more truth and transparency for starters.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

More stories by Robert Parry

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Among the recent flood of celebrity endorsements, one that has received little attention came in a Washington Post op-ed by President Dwight Eisenhower's granddaughter, Susan Eisenhower, explaining why she's backing Barack Obama.

Her principal argument was that she believed Obama could help this generation of Americans pull together to address worsening problems and "leave America a better, stronger place than the one it found," like her grandfather's generation did.

But Susan Eisenhower also recalled her grandfather's great insight, the warning in his farewell address about the danger looming from the "military-industrial complex" and the potential that democracy might become the "insolvent phantom of tomorrow." [Washington Post, Feb. 2, 2008]

When combined with the endorsements of President John F. Kennedy's daughter Caroline and his surviving brother Edward Kennedy, this Eisenhower support suggests that heirs to leaders from that earlier era see something in Obama that gives them hope that he can get the United States back on track with an earlier vision of America.

In Obama's rhetoric, there are echoes of both Eisenhower's cautionary advice and Kennedy's famous speech at American University on June 10, 1963, when the President spoke about "the most important topic on earth: world peace."

Kennedy continued: "What kind of peace do I mean? What kind of peace do we seek? Not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war. Not the peace of the grave or the security of the slave.

"I am talking about genuine peace, the kind of peace that makes life on earth worth living, the kind that enables men and nations to grow and to hope and to build a better life for their children -- not merely peace for Americans but peace for all men and women -- not merely peace in our time but peace for all time."

While recognizing the daunting challenges then presented by the Soviet Union, Kennedy went on to say: "So, let us not be blind to our differences. But let us also direct attention to our common interests and to the means by which those differences can be resolved. ...

"For, in the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children's future. And we are all mortal."

Ending a War Mindset

Of the five remaining major candidates for President, only Obama seems to offer that kind of direction for resolving disputes through negotiations, not ultimatums.

In the Jan. 31 debate in Los Angeles, he not only criticized Hillary Clinton's vote authorizing George W. Bush to invade Iraq but he disputed the critique now prevalent in opinion circles of Washington, that the war was a good idea, just poorly executed.

"I don't want to just end the war (in Iraq), but I want to end the mindset that got us into war in the first place," Obama said.

The Illinois senator apparently was referring to his readiness to hold discussions with U.S. enemies without preconditions, a position that Clinton has called naïve and a sign of his inexperience.

Meanwhile, on the Republican side, the leading contenders -- John McCain, Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee -- are competing over how enthusiastically to embrace Bush's Iraq War and how lavishly to finance the Pentagon and its many military contractors.

The Republicans are advocating locking in military spending at four percent of the gross domestic product or higher, essentially guaranteeing that Eisenhower's "military-industrial complex" will remain a well-financed fixture in American politics.

The four-percent-or-higher sum is roughly the amount that President Bush is recommending for the next fiscal year, which when expressed in dollars and adjusted for inflation is the highest military spending since World War II. [NYT, Feb. 4, 2008]

Obama is the only major candidate left in the race who sounds like he would even contemplate changing this dynamic, by negotiating with enemies and looking for ways to avoid the bellicosity of the Bush years.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: presidency, election08, barack obama, hillary clinton

Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book is Neck Deep: The Disastrous Presidency of George W. Bush.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Not true
Posted by: Markson on Feb 6, 2008 12:46 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obama is the only major candidate left in the race who sounds like he would even contemplate changing this dynamic, by negotiating with enemies and looking for ways to avoid the bellicosity of the Bush years.

When did Hillary Clinton say she would never negotiate with enemies? She criticized him for agreeing to meet with certain "leaders" without preconditions (which I disagree with her on), but not against diplomacy itself. Not even close.

Tell me: what's so benign about the highly inflammatory rhetoric he spewed against Pakistan this summer? He threatened to invade the country--a Muslim, nuclear powder keg--to hunt down terrorists and vowed to move US troops from Iraq to Pakistan, without regard to national sovereignty if "necessary." How the hell is that not bellicose?! I don't care for either of their foreign policy voting records or platforms, but to portray Clinton and Obama as different or Obama as some "change" agent is dishonest.

Read his essay in Foreign Affairs: he accepts unilateralism, aggressive war (i.e. "preemptive war") and vows to increase military spending, military intervention, the size of the military (by about 100k), and nation building. There's nothing sane about such a policy, either financially (Recession anyone?!) or politically. Obama believes the problem is not that we insist on interjecting ourselves into the domestic affairs of sovereign states, but that we don't do it enough.

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

» RE: Not true Posted by: Lector
» RE: Not true Posted by: kiowa
» Pakistan Posted by: redfrog
It Can Only Get Better
Posted by: Tom Degan on Feb 6, 2008 3:19 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The problem with the Democrats is that they have a positive genius for tuning caviar into donkey dung. They had a good thing going with John Edwards and they blew it. When Barack Obama says that he will bring Republicans and Democrats together, when he says that the big drug companies will have a seat at the table when working out an solution to America's health care crisis - he is being hopelessly naive. The fact of the matter is that the next president will have to beat these forces to a bloody pulp. One can only imagine Edwards being nominated as a "comprimise candidate" at a deadlocked convention this summer. When was the last time that happened? Warren G. Harding in 1920. Good luck.

Speaking of Harding, he and James Buchanan must be smiling wherever they are. George W. Bush has lifted a tremendous burden from their souls. They are no longer viewed as the worst presidents in American history.

That being said, Barack Obama is (as of this moment anyway) our best and only choice.

Tom Degan
Goshen, NY
"The Rant" by Tom Degan

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

» We the people have no choice Posted by: bthespoon
» RE: Oh, for Christ's sake! Posted by: Longdream
» RE: Oh, for Christ's sake! Posted by: redfrog
» RE: Oh, for Christ's sake! Posted by: Longdream
» Setting the record straight Posted by: redfrog
» RE: Setting the record straight Posted by: Longdream
» Will a Democrat REALLY END the war Posted by: JackieGiles
» RE: It Can Only Get Better Posted by: CatDad
» RE: It Can Only Get Better Posted by: EncinoM
» RE: It Can Always Get Worse..! Posted by: TJ-stars4peace
Clinton/Obama Honesty
Posted by: Abushite on Feb 6, 2008 3:33 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Check Hillary's ventures into cattle futures where she netted $100,000 0n a $1,000 bet is still unexplained - If she aspires the WH then fess up!

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

» RE: Clinton/Obama Honesty Posted by: bbfmail
» RE: making 100x on derivatives Posted by: Iconoclast421
» RE: making 100x on derivatives Posted by: freshlemon
» RE: Clinton/Obama Honesty Posted by: CatDad
» Why won't she? Posted by: foreverhope
» RE: Why won't she? Posted by: MNied
» RE: Clinton/Obama Honesty Posted by: VZEQICVA
Terrorist
Posted by: HeKnew on Feb 6, 2008 4:39 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
He's a uniter, not a divider...

Government of the people, by the people and for the people.

Direct Democracy

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

Hillary's Earmarks
Posted by: johnkwilson on Feb 6, 2008 5:17 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As I noted at Huffington Post, Hillary's use of earmarks and similar corrupt measures is a story being ignored by the media.

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

SUBTLE GRASP OF FOUNDING DOCUMENT?
Posted by: bbfmail on Feb 6, 2008 6:33 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"If Obama wins the Democratic nomination and manages to gain the White House, the American people would be getting a President with a subtle grasp of the nation's founding document."

I hope he also has a not so subtle "grasp" on the fact that a great number of the writers and signers of that "founding document" were slaveholders, as was the first President of this country, George Washington. Obama, no doubt has praise for George Washington, the slaveholder, just has has praise (or is it non-praise?) for Ronald Reagan, one of the most racists Presidents in recent history.

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

Truth Commission
Posted by: johnclark on Feb 6, 2008 6:31 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I like the idea of a Truth Commission over the idea of endless attempts to "make them pay for what they did". After all, is it really possible to go after Bush I, dig up Reagan and put him on trial, fight with the ICC over who gets to try Kissinger?

If only Clinton had continued investigating the Oct Surprise & Iran-Contragate, we would not have had to deal with Abrams & Poindexter again. But he didn't and they're back.

We had a truth commission in the '70's called the Church Commission, it gave light to the secret wars and illegal investigations that divided our nation. While I was too young to be politically active then, I watched 60 Minutes and learned all about Iran, Guatemala, Indonesia, Chile, Coinintelpro, ... from the so called "liberal media". It is why the right hated the press back then, it told us some truth.

I bet Henry Waxman has all of the files he needs, going all the way back to GHW Bush's days at the CIA to current events. I could see no one better to lead this effort than Rep Waxman.

We need again to acknowledge history, from the privatization of the CIA by Bush, which led to the October Surprise, guns for hostages, the illegal wars in Central America, the war in Afghanistan and the building up of the ISI, the use of NED around the world, cocaine, crack, and contras, the world anti-communist league ... and that's just the '70's and '80's.

The mistake here is that Clinton let these guys off the hook, and they took it as a sign of weakness. I expect Sen Clinton to do about the same, as cold war Democrats like Sam Nunn would be exposed in any search for truth. Sen Obama has no such baggage to cover up.

While I would like to have seen Cheney impeached, it is not going to happen. But it will be important to expose all of the dirt this administration has made. We need to give the public the names and organizations through government action so that they can never have any power again. Until this happens, all of the inside the beltway "kitchen cabinet" vast right wing conspiracy crackers will still be able to do their dirty work against democracy.

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

» RE: Truth Commission Posted by: Iconoclast421
» RE: Truth Commission Posted by: HeKnew
I love Obamas words
Posted by: daw13 on Feb 6, 2008 6:50 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the way I love a great sermon at church or synagoge. I get all teary eyed. But what I need is not a preacher in the presidency, I need a real leader. A guy willing to risk making people mad to pursue what he sees as the best course. Obama has yet to take any such risk. He's careful to couch phrases, but not to take real positions -- on health care, on race.

Oh excuse me, he has taken a position on health care. A very safe one. Read Krugman's recent NY Times piece critiquing it. On race? He talks about uniting, but refusese even to acknowledge the huge and well entrenched inaqualities that still exist, or the plain fact that white supremacy surges again as a powerful divider as the economy nose dives.

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

» RE: I love Obamas words Posted by: jimidee
» RE: I love Obamas words Posted by: daw13
» RE: I love Obamas words Posted by: Longdream
Obama = Hillary = America in the Gutter
Posted by: Iconoclast421 on Feb 6, 2008 7:09 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
He's better than Hillary, but he's still an annointed one. He spoke at the 2004 DNC. He did NOT come out of nowhere. He has been groomed for this position.

Obama is obviously a stop-gap candidate selected to attract the part of the population who is too angry at Hillary for voting for war. Obama's job is to get these people's trust, and then funnel them into the meat grinder. In the end, same result as Hillary. Nobody outspends a republican like a democrat. That's one of the few axioms in politics. Well, this country cannot survive a bigger spender than Bush.

National health care is a disastrous pipe dream. 80% of the public doesnt know what healthy is, and doesnt care, and I'm not paying to subsidize their stupidity and ignorance. Be free, be fat, eat that bag of Doritos. But dont come crawling to me for a damn handout when you realize there's no frickin nutrition in anything you eat, and its made you sick. OK, dumbs#^?? Just watch your drug ads on tv, and leave me the hell alone. That's what freedom is all about. Freedom to screw up and end up in the frickin gutter. OK? Some people belong in the gutter. Some people were born to revel in the gutter. They arent meant to be saved, they are meant to tell you that you need to bust your ass and work if you dont want to be in the gutter too.

You cant save everyone. You cant increase the prosperity or well being of a nation by stealing from the productive members of society and giving the fruits of their labor to a bunch of mindwashed television-addicted zombies. It teaches them nothing, except how to have kids even more complacent than they are. That's why we're in this mess. An entire generation has grown up thinking they can get something for nothing. No, you are going to get nothing for nothing.

The course americans have chosen probably cannot be changed at this point. I just hope you nitwits accept responsibility for what you've done to yourselves, and not go looking for dragons to slay. This wasnt the work of Al Qaeda. It wasnt islamo-fascists or muslims either. They didnt turn america into a 3rd world country. 9/11 truthers didnt cause this. Ron Paul supporters didnt cause this. Gun rights advocates didnt cause this. Activists and dissenters didnt cause this. And you better not let any of those groups be blamed.

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

Where will Obama take the nation??
Posted by: steven w on Feb 6, 2008 7:27 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Since Edwards is gone, you can kiss your "change" thing good-bye.

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

» RE: Where will Obama take the nation?? Posted by: cardboardurinal
Terrorist
Posted by: HeKnew on Feb 6, 2008 8:10 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's certainly no mystery to the candidates that all they have to do is lie their way into office and they'll have carte blanche for four years.

Under those circumstances, what kind of fool would consider telling the truth?

A Vote of Confidence Amendment will enable the American voting public to dismiss and hold over for criminal prosecution 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]

IT'S NOT JUST ABOUT US
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Feb 6, 2008 8:13 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When Bush & Co. leave office, we will be seen differently by the entire world. That's a very important ingredient and helps to determine what our next president does. No doubt he/she will change diretion dramatically, but the rest of the world has alot to do with it. We need our friends back. They dislike Bush more than we do. It will be different when he's gone. Big plus for the new president. Thanks, ANNA

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

» Anna you are a gem! Posted by: foreverhope
hang on
Posted by: willyd1962 on Feb 6, 2008 8:54 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Around the bowl and down the hole. Thats where he'll take us

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

» RE: hang on Posted by: sp00n67
» RE: hang on Posted by: Longdream
Where Obama will take us
Posted by: EncinoM on Feb 6, 2008 10:15 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Out of the 12 years of division.

THis nation is coming apart at the seams. The two sides refuse to talk to each other or acknowledge when the other has a valid point.

Look at who is voting for Obama, its not white america, no black america, its not liberal, moderate or conservative america, its america.

Are we not tired of one up-manship and gottcha politics. YOu want health care reform, do you think Billary's plan will sail through with no threats from republicans. In '93 there was a plan that had bi-partisan support, but because it was not Hillary's she had it killed and killed any chance of real reform back then.

Obama represents an amercia where people with views can argue and debate in an atmosphere where ideas are shared and discussed. Hillary represents a continuation of the same, we deserve better.

In his speeches, he does not say what he can do, but challenges us, like another great president, what we can do.

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

Clinton: Gateway to Another 4-8 years of Republican Rule
Posted by: cmaroudas on Feb 6, 2008 11:16 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Last night's primary provides further evidence that Obama appeals to moderate Republicans and red state voters. If the choice is between Clinton and McCain, I fear the Democrats may as well start planning McCain's inaugural party. Here's why:

1. The Clinton "Pucker": Republicans hate Hillary Clinton. I am the first the concede that their hatred is based on ignorance and emotive reactions to her rather than any real disagreements about her positions on issues. In addition, progressive Democrats don't like her. I have yet to see a "Any one but Obama 08" sticker. In the last week I have spoke with all my Republican friends and family. Of the 8 I spoke with, three voted for Obama (out-of-state open primaries), three said they would vote for Obama if they were Democrats, and two (both consider themselves conservative Christians) said they are unhappy with their candidates and are looking into Obama. Each added that they could not/would not vote for Clinton. This may be anecdotal but speaks clearly to me. IF Clinton could win the White House over McCain and IF she could get progressive legislation passed over the Republican minority, I would feel differently about her candidacy.

2. The War: The choice between Clinton and McCain on the war is muddled. On the one hand you have McCain who is just fine with policing the world and using as many guns, bombs, and boots as it takes. Clinton voted to authorize the war based on fraudulent intelligence. She could have said "I was duped" and admit her vote was based on lies (like Edwards). In addition, her recent inflammatory vote on Iran tells me that she is yet again going along with the Bush administration's version of intelligence. Fool me once… The choice between Obama and McCain is far clearer. End the war or continue it into perpetuity (ala North Korea). I believe that electing Obama sends a very clear signal to the rest of the world: We are through with the mindset that values an inflammatory, militaristic approach to dealing with the international community.

3. Leadership: I am an ardent feminist who delights in seeing capable women in positions of leadership. However, given Clinton's history battling the Republicans (specifically on healthcare), I doubt kicking down the doors of Congress shouting "I'm baaaack" will earn her much support from a powerful minority. Clinton should be commended on the groundwork she laid for universal healthcare in the 90's, but I don't think she's the one to make it a reality. The Republicans win the perception war on this one. "Hillarycare" is some scary boogie man but the same plan from another candidate is interesting and exciting. My Republican neighbor wanted to vote for Edwards but is scared by Hillary???!!! Edwards is far more progressive than Clinton but she loses the battle because of the "Clinton Pucker". I believe Obama's positions on the issues are more nuanced and attainable in the short term. His leadership style is far more inviting than Clinton's promise to take up her long fight against the Republicans.

I support Barack Obama, MoveOn.org, and the descendants of the 60's leadership who valued peace over For-Profit-War (The Kennedy's, Eisenhower). I voted for John Kerry in 2004, trusting him to run our country, and am moved by his endorsement. We have a chance to be with vanguard rather than the old guard. I hope you will join me.

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

War: the Real Issue= write today
Posted by: herbal on Feb 6, 2008 2:29 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Paul Krugman and most of the mainline press & media are trying to portray health insurance as the only difference between the corporatist Hillary and over conciliatory Obma. Obama accepted the ´pece branch´from Hillary fter the failue of Bill in his negative confrontations. Obama despertely needs to get agressive about his differences in war voting and distinguish himself from warmonger Hillary and her voting record. How dare her attack Obama´s anti war intent!

We internet hacks are only preaching to the choir at this point.

We need to mount a general strike at Hillary by writing to the editors of small and large newspapers in the states with upcoming primaries.

Write today, esp. with those who are in those states. Get them out today to avert a disaster of the Clinton alliance with Geo Bush Sr, Rupert Murdoch, CITI Bank, etc. etc.

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

The future is past. We have already won.
Posted by: W.O.F. on Feb 6, 2008 6:24 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Gentlemen and respected members of this august body, may I offer up thanks to our concerted efforts over these past few years. Last night's primary vote totals show that our efforts to split and nullify the GOP have been proven successful.

While many Republicans turn out in mediocre numbers the base of their party have taken the bait. Our Dixie Land associates have successfully fed enough of our carefully crafted misinformation into the churches and clan halls of the south to push Our McCain into the lead throughout the nation.

As planned the Southern Evangelical voters have hoisted their champion, Huckabee, high upon their shoulders to proclaim their hate filled rhetoric and doctrines in a number of southern states. They have taken votes away from their only real conservative in this race and have separated themselves from the rest of the Republican voting block that is voting for a left leaning Republicrat we have dressed up as a war hawk.

The Kansas hate churches have separated the more intelligent factions of the GOP from the evangelicals and continue to spread the anti Romney message throughout multiple denominations and mega churches and luckily for us, all this they have done on their own. Ironically it seems that their hateful version of deity has punished their own voters in Arkansas and Tennessee with powerful tornados and storms for their voting last night.

The Our Giuliani Camp has successfully pushed forth legislation creating winner take all delegations for state primary elections. We knew Romney and Huckabee could not garnish enough votes to win major states so the winner take all delegation campaign has worked in our favor. Little do they know that by doing so they are moving more toward Democracy and less toward their beloved Republic ideals they so proudly tout.

Soon our efforts to separate the more independent and rational sectors of the GOP from the dregs of their fickle society will prove successful. We have increased the production of more yellow ribbon stickers and flags to be sold at the convenience stores throughout the South. We have even contracted another country music artist to record an emotional country song to amp up the fanatical patriots in their trailer parks. If the Republicans can consider bottom of the barrel their base, then this is all they will have left once this project is completed.

John McCain will most certainly obtain the nomination. Our money and influence will pay out in November. In the interim let us continue to make our calls into the talk radio and provide the wedge to split the party. The pundits can work for us in our favor. Let us continue to frame the "Liberals" of the Republican Party as a cancer that must be cut off.

Gentlemen I forecast the fracture of the GOP within 12 months. They cannot withstand the force of their own hate machine. Their guns of hate have been pointed at their own heads for the last 8 years. We have supplied the ammunition. All we have now to do is wait, while they dismember themselves in efforts to purify the Party of God.

While Democrats line up in record numbers trying to decide which candidate is the greatest the Republicans are lining up and voting for the Democrat we installed years ago. Eerily we have the neo-cons and Karl Rove's minions to thank for this. We will continue to press forward in this fight and remember. The future is now in our hands. We have been given this opportunity by ones that opposed us for so long. Let us never forget our vision. The future is past. We have already won.



Sincerely,

W.O.F.

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

A Wolf in Sheep's Clothing
Posted by: riotoustanpdx on Feb 6, 2008 7:43 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is rhetoric, and there is substance that becomes a strong foundation upon which a new generation can build better lives.

Be warned, so many are eager to hear what they want to hear, the music in the rhetoric, that they forget to question how and where the Music Man will take them into the future.

Many people believe that Obama is the answer. I gravely doubt that he is.

Moses led the people out of Egypt, it is written, and spent the next forty years in the desert, lacking direction. He gave the people Hope and Change.

We do not have forty years; we barely have four, the next four, during which substantial change must take place in order to save this country. To restore it to the Constitutional principles upon which it was founded will take every bit of forty years.

Obama is brought to us by Oprah, not by God.

It will take leadership, not celebrity mania, not the celebrity mania that has bolstered the Obama campaign to this point at which it seems to be more than it is, and the music is mistaken for the medicine.

Be warned: Obama is not the answer. Keep this message, store it, take to heart. Remember that you found it here; these are the words of Thomas Alan Nagy

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

» RE: The Egomaniac has no clothes! Posted by: foreverhope
Will He appease the Terrorists
Posted by: aamer923 on Feb 6, 2008 7:53 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
According to the GOP, He is really an enemy in disguise. Can somebody please tell me if that is true?

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

Bullshit Obama is a manipulative Divider..and opportunist..
Posted by: TJ-stars4peace on Feb 6, 2008 8:51 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Simple as that..!

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

» RE: Simply bullshit. Posted by: Longdream
what choices are there?
Posted by: davidg on Feb 7, 2008 2:18 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
From what I see, the entire slate of candidates is pretty sad. The Repugs aren't worth discussion...now led by a lunatic war monger. Obama says nothing, but vague promises and homilies, and who the hell would trust Hilary? The only ones who could actually lead the US to a better social and political culture don't stand a chance and are gone...Nader, Kucinich, Gravel.... why? America's tragedy is its own myth and the unfortunate success of that myth. It's the culture, good people, and all that that implies. Look at the slate of candidates and what the culture produced.

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

An Aging Radical on Race and Politics
Posted by: nihilozero on Feb 8, 2008 6:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
An Aging Radical on Race and Politics

I don't write much these days. Formerly I wrote quite a bit about
radical politics and social transformation, but I've grown weary of
that practice and it never really seemed to amount to much anyway. In
my experience it's often thankless work if you're promoting
revolutionary changes because there aren't that many who can truly
appreciate radical ideas. And, even if some do appreciate the ideas,
they usually couldn't help you in many ways even if they were so
inclined. Anti-materialistic philosophy often effects the choices
people make in their lives (in terms of acquiring and dispersing even
the most fundamental necessities). And these days a guaranteed home
and food supply, to say nothing of ample leisure, is often considered
something of a luxury. The progress of the civilized world has led us
to a place of slums and hundreds of millions being severely
malnourished. I could, and will, go on highlighting the serious
shortcomings of the modern global system -- but that's just a backdrop
to the ideas I will be trying to develop in this article.

This is difficult for me because I am loathe to discuss the topics of
the title which relentlessly cause so much stress, in so many ways, in
so many lives. I think these things are important to consider and
thoughtful consideration is still something that I have a bit of
respect for. So I am going to present some ideas here which will
inevitably be received as somewhat controversial by so many backwards
regressive types who run roughshod over everyone and everything they
can. Controversy is not my goal. Neither is addressing the criticism
of small corrupted minds. Once again... it's thoughtful consideration
which I hope to engage in, and possibly inspire, to some degree. If I
could make these ideas into single soundbite or a pill which you could
pop for enlightenment, I would -- but I am not Fox News or Pfizer.
These ideas are best presented with a well developed background and
so, as wildly as the world is spinning out of control, I'm not going
to rush what I have to say. If you don't have the attention span to
take a few minutes to consider these subjects (about which some of you
might even fancy yourselves as experts), then you are possibly part of
the problem. And I don't herein present myself as infallible, but I
will try here to be honest and, again, only hope to make some of us
think a bit. The tone of this article will be blunt, casual, and
frank -- it's the only way I can write it.

RACE

Like many Americans, I have very limited knowledge about my racial or
ethnic history. I know that I am pale and ate at McDonald's as
child. If people feel they can or can't trust me because of these
things, I can understand the conditioning that would lead to that
narrowmindedness. But to provide a background of my own experience,
here are the specifics that I know about my own personal ethnic/racial
makeup... One grandfather claimed his relatives came from a country
between France and Germany which no longer exists. Obviously this
doesn't tell me much and, frankly, I'm not sure where he's talking
about or if he had any real clue himself. He and his family were
farmers in Arkansas, perhaps cotton-pickers like ... complete article concludes here: http://raceandpolitics.notlong.com/

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

Obama's likeability
Posted by: kberly7568 on Feb 12, 2008 11:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While I have heard a lot about what Hillary plans to do in regards to specific policies, I have not heard very many detailed plans from Obama. It seems as though he is banking on his general appeal and charisma, but i guess winning over ignorant america is half the battle. I think that he is the only candidate that stands a chance of beating McCain in the general election because Hillary is so polarizing. The media has plenty of dirt on Hillary and they pretty much praise McCain as a war hero and as a "straight talker" when nothing could be farther from the truth. Ckeck out this video...very interesting.
http://campaigncircus.com /video_player.php?v=7536

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