Wal-Mart Defender To Direct Obama’s Economic Policy

[DroppinScience]

Okay, I love Obama, but this makes me uncomfortable. :((n)

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/06/10/9534/

Wal-Mart Defender To Direct Obama’s Economic Policy
Appointment of Jason Furman Immediately Meets With Skepticism
by Josh Gerstein

Just days after clinching the Democratic presidential nomination, Senator Obama is naming as his economic policy director an economist who has clashed with critics of Wal-Mart by defending the company as a boon to poor Americans.0610 05 1

The appointment of Jason Furman, 37, a former Clinton administration official who is a visiting scholar at New York University, immediately met with skepticism from some who have faulted Wal-Mart for being stingy toward its workforce.

“It’s surprising because this guy seems to feel that Wal-Mart’s low-wage, low-benefit business model is good for America. That’s just flat-out wrong,” the executive director of Wal-Mart Watch, David Nassar, said. “This guy helped to lend credibility to the Wal-Mart business model. That was disappointing then and it’s disappointing now given this position,” said Mr. Nassar, whose group is backed by a board that includes the president of the Service Employees International Union, Andrew Stern. Mr. Nassar quickly added that he was “not critiquing the Obama campaign.”

A New York-based labor organizer and writer, Jonathan Tasini, said he was puzzled by the selection of Mr. Furman. “It’s legitimate to give you pause,” Mr. Tasini, who ran an unsuccessful primary challenge to Senator Clinton in 2006, said. “There have been concerns raised about where Obama’s economic policies will trend,” the writer said.

Mr. Tasini noted that, while Mr. Obama spurned labor groups by voting for a free-trade agreement with Peru, his past suggests he would be an ally of labor. “It’s hard to believe that during his community organizing work in the poorest neighborhoods of his own city he didn’t have something sink into him about income inequality. There’s no way to read anything he has put out there as anything but rejection for the Wal-Mart model,” Mr. Tasini said.

As the company became a pariah in Democratic circles, Mr. Furman stepped out on the issue in 2005 by publishing a 16-page paper titled, “Wal-Mart: A Progressive Success Story.” He argued that the huge cost savings the company has delivered to its customers, who tend to have low incomes, far outweighed any impact the chain may have had on wages.

In a debate on Slate.com in 2006, Mr. Furman took on the tactics of the anti-Wal-Mart movement, which include trying to block new stores in places like New York. “If I heard that Wal-Mart was coming to my neighborhood, New York’s West Village, I might rush for my mouse. But I wouldn’t kid myself into thinking that my opposition had anything to do with helping the poor. If anything, I would feel guilty that I was preventing moderate-income New Yorkers from enjoying the huge benefits that much of the rest of the country already knows so well,” he wrote.

“The collateral damage from these efforts to get Wal-Mart to raise its wages and benefits is way too enormous and damaging to working people and the economy more broadly for me to sit by idly and sing ‘Kum-Ba-Ya’ in the interests of progressive harmony,” Mr. Furman added.

A spokesman for Mr. Obama, Joshua Earnest, said the candidate and Mr. Furman have not discussed Wal-Mart.

During the primary campaign, Mr. Obama was sharply critical of the company. He has said he will not shop there and that Wal-Mart should pay “a living wage.”

At a January debate, Mr. Obama seemed to play to Wal-Mart’s critics when he suggested that Senator Clinton’s six-year stint on the company’s board paled in comparison to his record as a community organizer in Chicago. “While I was working on those streets watching those folks see their jobs shift overseas, you were a corporate lawyer sitting on the board at Wal-Mart,” Mr. Obama said, in one of his sharpest jabs at Mrs. Clinton.

One economist who has disputed some of Mr. Furman’s findings on Wal-Mart said the disagreement shouldn’t disqualify him. “That’s small potatoes. Jason’s economic agenda goes way beyond that,” Jared Bernstein of the Economic Policy Institute said. “That’s not anything close to a deal breaker.”

Mr. Furman had been affiliated with the Brookings Institution as director of its Hamilton Project, an economic policy project whose advisory council includes executives of Citigroup, as well as prominent hedge fund executives such as Eric Mindich of Eton Park Capital Management, Richard Perry of Perry Capital, and Thomas Steyer of Farallon Capital.

[Laver1969]

This guy didn't actually work for Wal-Mart...did he?

It just sounds like he's defended in a paper that Wal-Mart brings very low prices to the consumer and that is more important that the low wages/benefits they offer their employees.

[RobMoney$]

This has "GOP smear campaign" written all over it.


The alarming thing is that you don't actually know what or who will be behind Obama'a economic policy. The outgoing administration is leaving the books in such a mess that it doesn't really matter who gets elected, the incoming President will have to both cut spending and raise taxes to pay for Georgie's maxing the credit card out while he had it.

[Documad]

So DS, I guess you had no idea what Ms. Obama does for a living?

[DroppinScience]

So DS, I guess you had no idea what Ms. Obama does for a living?

Nope, enlighten me. I know you made a passing reference to Mrs. Obama having ties to Wal-Mart but nothing beyond that.

And I thought on 60 Minutes, it was revealed that Michelle works at the University of Chicago (or was it University of Illinois... don't remember which) Hospital.

[RobMoney$]

Nope, enlighten me. I know you made a passing reference to Mrs. Obama having ties to Wal-Mart but nothing beyond that.

And I thought on 60 Minutes, it was revealed that Michelle works at the University of Chicago (or was it University of Illinois... don't remember which) Hospital.


See, this annoys the hell out of me.

[DroppinScience]

See, this annoys the hell out of me.

Do I even want to know what exactly is annoying you here?

[saz]

i think he might be annoyed that you're an overly enthusiastic obama supporter who might not know everything about him, that you're possibly surprised or ignorant by the fact that obama isn't an economic populist, nor has economic progressive leanings; that he has conservative (http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2008/01/09/obamas-economic-advisers/) economic advisors whose policies (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stephen-schlesinger/obamas-conservative-econ_b_83315.html) aren't in line with traditional populist democratic stances. it was actually barack who lectured (http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html) at the university of chicago, while michelle was a member of the board of treehouse foods (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1551441/Obama-called-hypocrite-for-wife%27s-Wal-Mart-link.html), whose biggest customer is walmart. apparently she cut her ties to treehouse foods since barack began openly criticizing walmart, however i think michelle is still a university of chicago hospital executive.

anyways, the appointment of jason furman isn't shocking, given obama's background, his centre-to-right ideological leanings and laisse-faire, conservative free market musings in the audacity of hope.

[DroppinScience]

i think he might be annoyed that you're an overly enthusiastic obama supporter who might not know everything about him, that you're possibly surprised or ignorant by the fact that obama isn't an economic populist, nor has economic progressive leanings; that he has conservative (http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2008/01/09/obamas-economic-advisers/) economic advisors whose policies (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stephen-schlesinger/obamas-conservative-econ_b_83315.html) aren't in line with traditional populist democratic stances. it was actually barack who lectured (http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html) at the university of chicago, while michelle was a member of the board of treehouse foods (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1551441/Obama-called-hypocrite-for-wife%27s-Wal-Mart-link.html), whose biggest customer is walmart. apparently she cut her ties to treehouse foods since barack began openly criticizing walmart, however i think michelle is still a university of chicago hospital executive.

anyways, the appointment of jason furman isn't shocking, given obama's background, his centre-to-right ideological leanings and laisse-faire, conservative free market musings in the audacity of hope.

Yeah, Rob's probably annoyed that "Obamatrons" may not know everything about the candidate, but I doubt it's because of Obama's economic policies.

I'm only surprised about Furman in that Obama has openly criticized Wal-Mart, so to appoint a Wal-Mart-friendly guy is disappointing.

But whatever shortcomings Obama has, we all know McCain is far worse in nearly every aspect imaginable.

[DroppinScience]

Hmmm... so I suppose Obama is no longer trying to run as a progressive now that he has the nomination?

Read on...

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/06/11/9558/

Published on Wednesday, June 11, 2008 by Foreign Policy in Focus
Obama’s Right Turn?
by Stephen Zunes
In many respects, presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama has played right into the hands of cynics who have long doubted his promises to create a new and more progressive role for the United States in the world. The very morning after the last primaries, in which he finally received a sufficient number of pledged delegates to secure the Democratic presidential nomination and no longer needed to win over voters from the progressive base of his own party, Obama — in a Clinton-style effort at triangulation — gave a major policy speech before the national convention of the America-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). Embracing policies which largely backed those of the more hawkish voices concerned with Middle Eastern affairs, he received a standing ovation for his efforts.

His June 3 speech in Washington in many ways constituted a slap in the face of the grass roots peace and human rights activists who have brought him to the cusp of the Democratic presidential nomination.

In other respects, however, he pandered less to this influential lobbying group than many other serious aspirants for national office have historically. And at least part of his speech focused on convincing the largely right-wing audience members to support his positions rather than simply underscoring his agreement with them.

Much of the media attention placed upon his speech centered on the ongoing debate between him and incipient Republican presidential nominee John McCain on Iran. While embracing many of the same double-standards regarding nuclear nonproliferation issues and UN resolutions as does the Bush administration and congressional leaders of both parties, Obama did insert some rationality into the debate regarding the need for negotiations with that regional power rather than maintaining the current U.S. policy of diplomatic isolation and threats of war.

When it came to Israel and Palestine, however, Obama appeared to largely embrace a right-wing perspective which appeared to place all the blame for the ongoing violence and the impasse in the peace process on the Palestinians under occupation rather than the Israelis who are still occupying and colonizing the parts of their country seized by the Israeli army more than 40 years ago.

Progressive Israeli Reactions

While there were some faint glimmers of hope in Obama’s speech for those of us who support Israeli-Palestinian peace, progressive voices in Israel were particularly disappointed.

Israeli analyst Uri Avneri, in an essay entitled “No, I Can’t!”, expressed the bitterness of many Israeli peace activists for “a speech that broke all records for obsequiousness and fawning.” Avneri goes on to observe the irony of how Obama’s “dizzying success in the primaries was entirely due to his promise to bring about a change, to put an end to the rotten practices of Washington and to replace the old cynics with a young, brave person who does not compromise his principles. And lo and behold, the very first thing he does after securing the nomination of his party is to compromise his principles.”
Avneri addressed the view of many Israelis that “Obama’s declarations at the AIPAC conference are very, very bad for peace. And what is bad for peace is bad for Israel, bad for the world and bad for the Palestinian people.”

Support for Further Militarization

In his speech, Obama rejected the view that the Middle East already has too many armaments and dismissed pleas by human rights activists that U.S. aid to Israel — like all countries — should be made conditional on adherence to international humanitarian law. Indeed, he further pledged an additional $30 billion of taxpayer-funded military aid to the Israeli government and its occupation forces over the next decade with no strings attached. Rather than accept that strategic parity between potential antagonists is the best way, short of a full peace agreement, to prevent war and to maintain regional security, Obama instead insisted that the United States should enable Israel to maintain its “qualitative military edge.”

Over the past three years, the ratio of Palestinian civilians in the Gaza Strip killed by Israeli forces relative to the number of Israeli civilians in Israel killed by Palestinians is approximately 50 to one and has been even higher more recently. However, Obama chose only to mention the Israeli deaths and condemn Hamas, whose armed wing has been responsible for most of the Israeli casualties, and not a word about the moral culpability of the Israeli government, which Amnesty International and other human rights groups have roundly criticized for launching air strikes into Gaza’s densely crowded refugee camps and related tactics.

Since first running for the U.S. Senate, Obama has routinely condemned Arab attacks against Israeli civilians but has never condemned attacks against Arab civilians by Israelis. This apparent insistence that the lives of Palestinian and Lebanese civilian are somehow less worthy of attention than the lives of Israeli civilians have led to charges of racism on the part of Obama.

Despite his openness to talk with those governing Iran and North Korea, Obama emphasized his opposition to talking to those governing the Gaza Strip, even though Hamas won a majority in the Palestinian parliament in what was universally acknowledged as a free election. Though a public opinion poll published in the leading Israeli newspaper Haaretz showed that 64% of the Israeli population support direct negotiations between Israel and Hamas (while only 28% expressed opposition), Obama has chosen to side with the right-wing minority in opposing any such talks. Furthermore, Obama insists that Hamas should have never been even allowed to participate in the Palestinian elections in the first place because of their extremist views, which fail to recognize Israel and acts of terrorism by its armed wing. Yet he has never objected to the Israelis allowing parties such as National Union - which defends attacks on Arab civilians and seeks to destroy any Palestinian national entity, and expel its Arab population - to participate in elections or hold high positions in government.

He insisted that Hamas uphold previous agreements by the Fatah-led Palestine Authority with Israel, but did not insist that Israel uphold its previous agreements with the Palestine Authority, such as withdrawing from lands re-occupied in 2001 in violation of U.S.-guaranteed disengagement agreements.

In reference to Obama’s speech, the anchor to Israel’s Channel 2 News exclaimed that it was “reminiscent of the days of Menachem Begin’s Likud,” referring to the far right-wing Israeli party and its founder, a notorious terrorist from the 1940s who later became prime minister. By contrast, back in February, while still seeking liberal Democratic votes in the primaries, Obama had explicitly rejected the view which, in his words, identifies being pro-Israel with “adopting an unwaveringly pro-Likud view of Israel.” Now that he has secured the nomination, however, he has appeared to have changed his tune.

Endorsing Israel’s Annexation of Jerusalem

Most disturbing was Obama’s apparent support for Israel’s illegal annexation of greater East Jerusalem, the Palestinian-populated sector of the city and surrounding villages that Israel seized along with the rest of the West Bank in June 1967.

The UN Security Council passed a series of resolutions (252, 267, 271, 298, 476 and 478) calling on Israel to rescind its annexation of greater East Jerusalem and to refrain from any unilateral action regarding its final status. Furthermore, due to the city’s unresolved legal status dating from the 1948-49 Israeli war on independence, the international community refuses to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, with the United States and other governments maintaining their respective embassies in Tel Aviv.

Despite these longstanding internationally-recognized legal principles, Obama insisted in his speech before AIPAC that “Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided.”

Given the city’s significance to both populations, any sustainable peace agreement would need to recognize Jerusalem as the capital city for both Israel and Palestine. In addition to its religious significance for both Palestinian Christians and Palestinian Muslims, Jerusalem has long been the most important cultural, commercial, political, and educational center for Palestinians and has the largest Palestinian population of any city in the world. Furthermore, Israel’s annexation of greater East Jerusalem and its planned annexation of surrounding settlement blocs would make a contiguous and economically viable Palestinian state impossible. Such a position, therefore, would necessarily preclude any peace agreement. This raises serious questions as to whether Obama really does support Israeli-Palestinian peace after all.

According to Uri Avneri, Obama’s “declaration about Jerusalem breaks all bounds. It is no exaggeration to call it scandalous.” Furthermore, says this prominent observer of Israeli politics, every Israeli government in recent years has recognized that calls for an undivided Jerusalem “constitutes an insurmountable obstacle to any peace process. It has disappeared - quietly, almost secretly - from the arsenal of official slogans. Only the Israeli (and American-Jewish) Right sticks to it, and for the same reason: to smother at birth any chance for a peace that would necessitate the dismantling of the settlements.” The Israeli government in recent years has recognized that calls for an undivided Jerusalem “constitutes an insurmountable obstacle to any peace process. It has disappeared - quietly, almost secretly - from the arsenal of official slogans. Only the Israeli (and American-Jewish) Right sticks to it, and for the same reason: to smother at birth any chance for a peace that would necessitate the dismantling of the settlements.”

Obama argued in his speech that the United States should not “force concessions” on Israel, such as rescinding its annexation of Jerusalem, despite the series of UN Security Council resolutions explicitly calling on Israel do to so. While Obama insists that Iran, Syria, and other countries that reject U.S. hegemonic designs in the region should be forced to comply with UN Security Council resolutions, he apparently believes allied governments such as Israel are exempt.
Also disturbing about his statement was a willingness to “force concessions” on the Palestinians by pre-determining the outcome of one of the most sensitive issues in the negotiations. If, as widely interpreted, Obama was recognizing Israel’s illegal annexation of greater East Jerusalem, it appears that the incipient Democratic nominee - like the Bush administration - has shown contempt for the most basic premises of international law, which forbids any country from expanding its borders by force.

However, the Jerusalem Post reported that the Obama campaign, in an attempt to clarify his controversial statement, implied that the presumed Democratic presidential nominee was not actually ruling out Palestinian sovereignty over parts of Jerusalem and that “undivided” simply meant that “it’s not going to be divided by barbed wire and checkpoints as it was in 1948-1967.” The campaign also replied to the outcry from his speech by declaring that “Jerusalem is a final status issue, which means it has to be negotiated between the two parties” as part of “an agreement that they both can live with.” This implies that Obama’s recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel does not necessarily preclude its Arab-populated eastern half becoming the capital of a future Palestinian state.

Israel, however, has shown little willingness to withdraw its administration and occupation forces from greater East Jerusalem voluntarily. Obama’s apparent reluctance to pressure Israel to do so makes it hard to imagine that he is really interested in securing a lasting peace agreement.

It Could Have Been Worse

Perhaps, as his campaign claims, Obama was not rejecting the idea of a shared co-capital of Jerusalem. And perhaps his emphasis on Israeli suffering relative to Palestinian suffering was simply a reflection of the sympathies of the audience he was addressing and was not indicative of anti-Arab racism. If so, the speech could have been a lot worse.

Indeed, Obama’s emphasis on peace, dialogue, and diplomacy is not what the decidedly militaristic audience at AIPAC normally hears from politicians who address them.

Obama did mention, albeit rather hurriedly, a single line about Israeli obligations, stating that Israel could “advance the cause of peace” by taking steps to “ease the freedom of Palestinians, improve economic conditions” and “refrain from building settlements.” This is more than either Hillary Clinton or John McCain was willing to say in their talks before the AIPAC convention. And, unlike the Bush administration, which last year successfully pressured Israel not to resume peace negotiations with Syria, Obama declared that his administration would never “block negotiations when Israel’s leaders decide that they may serve Israeli interests.”

Furthermore, earlier in his career, Obama took a more balanced perspective on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, aligning himself with positions embraced by the Israeli peace camp and its American supporters. For example, during his unsuccessful campaign for the U.S. House of Representatives in 2000, Obama criticized the Clinton administration for its unconditional support for the occupation and other Israeli policies and called for an even-handed approach to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. He referred to the “cycle of violence” between Israelis and Palestinians, whereas most Democrats were insisting that it was a case of “Palestinian violence and the Israeli response.” He also made statements supporting a peace settlement along the lines of the 2003 Geneva Initiative and similar efforts by Israeli and Palestinian moderates.

Unlike any other major contenders for president this year or the past four election cycles, Obama at least has demonstrated in the recent past a more moderate and balanced perspective on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. As president, he may well be better than his AIPAC speech would indicate. Though the power of the “Israel Lobby” is often greatly exaggerated, it may be quite reasonable to suspect that pressure from well-funded right-wing American Zionist constituencies has influenced what Obama believes he can and cannot say. As an African-American whose father came from a Muslim family, he is under even more pressure than most candidates to avoid being labeled as “anti-Israel.”

Ironically, a strong case can be made that the right-wing militaristic policies he may feel forced to defend actually harm Israel’s legitimate long-term security interests.

A Political Necessity?

If indeed Obama took these hard-line positions during his AIPAC speech in order to seem more electable, it may be a serious mistake. Most liberal Democrats who gave blind support to the Israeli government in the 1960s and 1970s now have a far more even-handed view of the conflict, recognizing both Israeli and Palestinian rights and responsibilities. In addition, voters under 40 tend to take a far more critical view of unconditional U.S. support for Israeli policies than those of older generations. There is a clear generational shift among American Jews as well, with younger Jewish voters — although firmly supporting Israel’s right to exist in peace and security — largely opposing unconditional U.S. support for the occupation and colonization of Arab lands. The only major voting group that supports positions espoused by AIPAC are right-wing Christian fundamentalists, who tend to vote Republican anyway.

Furthermore, Obama has been far more dependent on large numbers of small donors from his grassroots base and less on the handful of wealthy donors affiliated with such special interest groups as AIPAC. This speech may have cost him large numbers of these smaller, progressive donors without gaining him much from the small numbers of larger, more conservative donors.

Indeed, there may not be a single policy issue where Obama’s liberal base differs from the candidate more than on Israel/Palestine. Not surprisingly, the Green Party and its likely nominee, former Georgia Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, along with independent candidate Ralph Nader, are both using this issue to gain support at the expense of Obama.

Only hours after his AIPAC speech, the Nader campaign sent out a strongly worded letter noting how, unlike Obama and McCain, Nader supports the Israeli and Palestinian peace movements and would change U.S. Middle East policy. The widely-circulated response to the speech makes the case that, in contrast to Obama, “Nader/Gonzalez stands on these issues with the majority of Israelis, Palestinians, Jewish-Americans and Arab Americans.”

Betraying the Jewish Community

Through a combination of deep-seated fear from centuries of anti-Semitic repression, manipulation by the United States and other Western powers, and self-serving actions by some of their own leaders, a right-wing minority of American Jews support influential organizations such as AIPAC to advocate militaristic policies that, while particularly tragic for the Palestinians and Lebanese, are ultimately bad for the United States and Israel as well. Obama’s June 3 speech would have been the perfect time for Obama, while upholding his commitment to Israel’s right to exist in peace and security, to challenge AIPAC’s militarism and national chauvinism more directly. Unfortunately, while showing some independence of thought on Iran, he apparently felt the Palestinians were not as important.

Taking a pro-Israel but anti-occupation position would have demonstrated that Obama was not just another pandering politician and that he recognized that a country’s legitimate security needs were not enhanced by invasion, occupation, colonization and repression.

That truly would have been “change you can believe in.”

Stephen Zunes, a Foreign Policy In Focus senior analyst, serves as a professor of politics and chair of Middle East Studies at the University of San Francisco.

[RobMoney$]

Yeah, Rob's probably annoyed that "Obamatrons" may not know everything about the candidate, but I doubt it's because of Obama's economic policies.

I'm only surprised about Furman in that Obama has openly criticized Wal-Mart, so to appoint a Wal-Mart-friendly guy is disappointing.

But whatever shortcomings Obama has, we all know McCain is far worse in nearly every aspect imaginable.

I'm not about to tell you all that I know everything there is to know about Hillary. Nor do I expect his very vocal supporters (like DS) to know everything there is to know about Obama's platform either.

I guess my point is that nobody knows very much about Obama or what his policies are going to be and it just boggles my mind how he's managed to gain such popularity with soo little history to go on. Personally I believe his race had a lot to do with it. I believe people voted for him because he was black and all the liberals wanted to show just how liberal they were.
And yes, voting for the unknown Black candidate is much more liberal than voting for the white woman who's previously resided at 1600 Pennsylvania for 8 years.

At least with Clinton & McCain, whether you agree or disagree with their philosophies, they're known quantities and you know what you're voting for. People are putting one hell of a lot of faith in Obama simply in the name of change.

I still don't understand why she's so polarizing, even in her own party.
Republicans hate the Clintons, that I get. That's because Bill's the anti-Republican, he had the country running like a well-oiled machine and that made Republican economic policies (the rich get richer) look bad.
But I'm really failing to understand the Democrat hate. Maybe it's simply because she was Obamas opponent?


And using the "lesser of two evils" excuse with Obama-McCain is the ultimate hipocracy. You all chose Obama over the better candidate in the name of "Change" and now 2 weeks into the GE campaign the Obama supporters (DS) are going with the "lesser of two evils" excuse?

Really?

Two weeks ago he was a "once in a lifetime leader". What happened?


If you weren't Canadian and therefore your opinion is meaningless anyway, I'd urge you to write to Obama's campaign and ask him to bow out of the race now and let Hillary have the nomination if you truly thought he was just "the lesser of two evils" and he's turning into something you didn't vote for.

[afronaut]

I'm not about to tell you all that I know everything there is to know about Hillary. Nor do I expect his very vocal supporters (like DS) to know everything there is to know about Obama's platform either.

I guess my point is that nobody knows very much about Obama or what his policies are going to be and it just boggles my mind how he's managed to gain such popularity on such an empty platform.

At least with Clinton & McCain, whether you agree or disagree with their philosophies, they're known quantities and you know what you're voting for. People are putting one hell of a lot of faith in Obama simply in the name of change.

I still don't understand why she's so polarizing, even in her own party. Republicans hate the Clintons, that I get. That's because Bill's the anti-Republican, he had the country running like a well-oiled machine and that made Republican economic policies (the rich get richer) look bad. But I'm really failing to understand the Democrat hate. Maybe it was just from the Obama supporters?


And using the "lesser of two evils" excuse with Obama-McCain is the ultimate hipocracy. You all chose Obama over the better candidate in the name of "Change" and now 2 weeks into the GE campaign the Obama supporters (DS) are going with the "lesser of two evils" excuse?

Really?

Two weeks ago he was a "once in a lifetime leader". What happened?


If you weren't Canadian and therefore your opinion is meaningless anyway, I'd urge you to write to Obama's campaign and ask him to bow out of the race now and let Hillary have the nomination if you truly thought he was just "the lesser of two evils" and he's turning into something you didn't vote for.
Obama is like a mystery surprise package, you have no idea what you're really going to get. You just know that it can't be any worse than anything else out there. I also think that because of the past eight years, a lot of people have lost faith in leadership, and laugh at the fact that anyone in power can really make any kind of change. So I think some people are sick of this despair and are more than willing to buy into his message of hope and change, and the others (like me) don't really see how he can fuck things up any worse than our last president or congress. He seems to have a brain though, and unfortunately, I think thats the most we can hope for right now.

Plus, everyone knows that a president is just a puppet. A puppet to his cabinet, business interests, political interests, lobbyists, and Israel, among other things. To think that one man or one political party is running the country is ridiculous. To really judge how the country is going to be run by a particular candidate, it would make more sense to look at the people around him. So judging by the other people around him, how is it any surprise that he would appoint a Wal Mart apologist?

Don't get me wrong though, I still support the guy, and have a little bit of "hope" for his "change." Just a little bit.

[Bob]

it's kind of like, you can either have 1) a mousetrap attached to your balls (mccain), or 2) what's in the mystery box (obama)...i'll take the box, thanks. maybe it's just a bigger mousetrap, but hey, maybe it could be a dishwasher or something!

i figure obama will be good for one of two reasons:

1) he'll actually deliver all of the change that he's promised (unlikely), or
2) he'll turn around and be completely the same as every other candidate, and people will notice that fact, and maybe get sick of the two parties we have (sick enough to do something about it i mean) and maybe we can progress to something a little better.

either way, it should be interesting. with mccain, you know what you're going to get and you know it's going to suck, but with obama, really just about anything could happen, i'm excited.

[DroppinScience]

If you weren't Canadian and therefore your opinion is meaningless anyway, I'd urge you to write to Obama's campaign and ask him to bow out of the race now and let Hillary have the nomination if you truly thought he was just "the lesser of two evils" and he's turning into something you didn't vote for.

Even if Obama is not actually the guy many would like him to be (myself included), I knew full well that not only was he better than McCain, but he was better than Hillary.

Since securing the nomination, yes, I've been disappointed in the Israel pandering and now this Wal-Mart apologist angle is also not something many people had in mind with the whole "change" and "hope" mantra.

Having said all that, why would I feel regret and now want Hillary to have the nomination? If anything, she'd be an extension of these very same things... only worse. The pandering to Israel would be even stronger, and we already know she has stronger Wal-Mart ties than Obama.

Of the three, Obama was and still is the best of the choices (you clearly thought Hillary was the best of the three). Nevertheless, I still would expect more out of him. That simple.

[Documad]

Bill Clinton wasn't who you thought he was either. The simple truth is that successful politicians, and lawyers who go to good law schools and then later become politicians, are not noble people. Just like the president of my student body in high school was not a noble person. He was a person who knew how to play other people. I'm fine with that. I just won't pretend that there is more to it. People who are good at public speaking are good at public speaking. That doesn't mean that they're good at everything else. I think public speaking is overrated.

Michelle Obama, like Hillary Clinton before her, has made money by representing companies that hurt little people. No surprise. That's what high earning lawyers usually do. She wasn't working in legal aid. At least not that I heard of. Hillary spent about 6 months working in legal aid type work about 35 years ago. They're all the same. :rolleyes:

By the way, the vast majority of lawyers working in environmental law are helping corporations pollute. They aren't protecting the environment. Law is a funny profession. :)

[RobMoney$]

Bill Clinton wasn't who you thought he was either. The simple truth is that successful politicians, and lawyers who go to good law schools and then later become politicians, are not noble people.

See, I'm fine with that.
I realize that they're ALL scumbags. I'm distrustful of anyone who's extremely successful in their lives. I look at them as someone who's most likely stepped on more than a few people to get where they are in life.

Bill's no different, but I'm not looking for someone to tell me what morals to live my life by in a President (Huckabee). If I can find someone who can manage to keep the American Dollar at a respectable level and not lead us into an unjust war, I'd be happy.

I'm not sure if Obama or McCain can achieve even those two things. I believe Hillary had the best chance of doing both.


Ok, I'm done crying about Hillary being the best candidate.

[yeahwho]

So DS, I guess you had no idea what Ms. Obama does for a living?

Maureen Dowd today from the NYTimes, Mincing Up Michelle (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/11/opinion/11dowd.html?_r=1&oref=slogin), it was bound to start, to quote the Replacements, I don't begin to understand.

[QueenAdrock]

I don't see anyone giving the "lesser of two evils" speech here. I see it more as "He's done this, I'm disappointed in him, but overall he's still a great candidate." I don't like how he's pandering to the evangelical vote, but on the other hand, he wanted not just party unity, but country unity. Perhaps his pandering is to bring together two sides once and for all. You'd hope so, at least.

In my eyes, I give McCain about a 15% personal approval rating (very generous, but don't worry, Bush is at 0%). Obama started at...let's say around 80%. By him pandering or adding someone to his cabinet I don't agree with, his overall approval with me may go down, but 75% versus 15% is still a HUGE difference. I'd love to have a candidate I agree with 100% of the time, but that's not going to happen. It's not that he's the lesser of two evils, at all. Obama would have to get down to to the 20% range in order for me to consider it a "lesser of two evils" race. He's still by no means a candidate I'd vote for just because he's not McCain.

[RobMoney$]

But if your not exactly sure what Obama's plan is (and that would include all of us) how can you say you agree with 80% of it?



For instance, Let's say I have $50,000 dollars I'm looking to invest for my retirement and I have two friends who are in the Investment banking business.
One friend has just started in the industry and has shown me he has turned a tidy profit with a limited amount of capitol and is eager to see what he can do with some more significant capitol.
The other friend is someone who's been in the business for well over 30 years. Her husband was the CEO of T.Rowe Price for 8 years and she's currently a VP for Merril Lynch.

I think the choice is clear who the person more qualified is. Some people may be in a position where they're willing to go for the "Big Risk/ Big Reward" guy in hopes of being able to get rich quick.
Me, I'm going with the known quantity because I don't want to risk having to eat dog food from a can when I retire.

[RobMoney$]

But whatever shortcomings Obama has, we all know McCain is far worse in nearly every aspect imaginable.


Sure sounds like "the lesser of two evils" excuse to me.

[mikizee]

I think the US is boned no matter what.

And if the US is boned, they're gunna drag the rest of the world down with them kicking and screaming.

Lots to look forward to

[QueenAdrock]

Sure sounds like "the lesser of two evils" excuse to me.

No, to me that sounded like "No matter what happens, Obama is still better." I took that as "Obama could come out and say he smoked crack and likes hookers, but he still has better ideas for America than McCain does."

It comes down to issues, not who's on his VP selection team or who backs him or anything else. He may have ties to Walmart or other businesses we don't agree with, but his ideas for America are more progressive than McCain's, period. We may not agree with those things that come out, but bottom line is that he'd make a better president.

And if you don't understand his position on the issues, read his book. He outlines exactly what he wants to get done, and I do agree with about 80% of what he says and what he stands for based on what I've read. I'd rather go with ideas than experience. Like I've said before, Rumsfeld and Cheney had a LOT of experience, and you saw how they treated our country. It's a total shithole under them. Experience is nothing without great ideas, which is why I voted for Obama over Hillary.

[afronaut]

I don't see what the fuss is all about with the "lesser of two evils" argument. We hear it every election year. It's fundamentally true. Obama is the lesser of two evils. Why would I vote for the greater of two evils? If somebody was stupid enough to fall in love with Obama and consider him some kind of savior, then we just have one more stupid voter on our hands. America is full of them. That still doesn't change the fact that Obama is the lesser of two evils, by a large margin.

And it's not like Hillary is significantly any more or less evil than Obama. In fact, she's probably more evil, because she has "experience."

[alien autopsy]

he's just another corrupt politician with ties to giant corporations. thats how you have to be to get into power. the presidency and this democracy is a facade for control and exploitation. they care nothing for us. they just want to keep us cheering and clapping so that the illusion can be let to continue. cheers folks. good luck with your candidate.

[alien autopsy]

I don't see what the fuss is all about with the "lesser of two evils" argument. We hear it every election year. It's fundamentally true. Obama is the lesser of two evils. Why would I vote for the greater of two evils? If somebody was stupid enough to fall in love with Obama and consider him some kind of savior, then we just have one more stupid voter on our hands. America is full of them. That still doesn't change the fact that Obama is the lesser of two evils, by a large margin.

And it's not like Hillary is significantly any more or less evil than Obama. In fact, she's probably more evil, because she has "experience."


lesser of two evils. its funny how everyone is all ra ra ra for obama, and then as soon as its down to him and mccain, its the old lesser of two evils argument. why do we put up with the lesser of two evils? why dont we just change the system so that we dont have to choose between the "lesser of two evils"? what about having a good human being, like an ecologist, or a peace activist be a president? what a radical concept.

[afronaut]

yeah, we know. thanks for constantly telling us stuff we all realized years ago.

i'm all for changing the system. tell me your plan, and lets get started.

[alien autopsy]

so long as we buy into the system and convince ourselves its working, we keep it. obviously its not working if we are voting for the lesser of two evils all the time.

[DroppinScience]

so long as we buy into the system and convince ourselves its working, we keep it. obviously its not working if we are voting for the lesser of two evils all the time.

In other words... you have no idea just like everyone else.

And the problem right now is that the GREATER of two evils have won at least twice in a row. Let's actually get the lesser of two evils in office then let's talk again.

[RobMoney$]

And if you don't understand his position on the issues, read his book. He outlines exactly what he wants to get done, and I do agree with about 80% of what he says and what he stands for based on what I've read. I'd rather go with ideas than experience. Like I've said before, Rumsfeld and Cheney had a LOT of experience, and you saw how they treated our country. It's a total shithole under them. Experience is nothing without great ideas, which is why I voted for Obama over Hillary.


I'm familiar with his plan for taxing windfall profits on oil companies.
Senate Republicans blocked that from happening yesterday so good luck with that. I also think that idea is horrible anyway.


...and saying Rumsfeld & Cheney are experienced, therefore all experienced politicians (such as the Clintons) are bad doesn't make very much sense.
That actually sounds like something the Obama campaign would say to counter his opponents experience and minimize Obama's lack thereof.

[alien autopsy]

do whatever you feel you need to do.

[QueenAdrock]

I'm familiar with his plan for taxing windfall profits on oil companies.
Senate Republicans blocked that from happening yesterday so good luck with that. I also think that idea is horrible anyway.


...and saying Rumsfeld & Cheney are experienced, therefore all experienced politicians (such as the Clintons) are bad doesn't make very much sense.
That actually sounds like something the Obama campaign would say to counter his opponents experience and minimize Obama's lack thereof.

His book outlines more of his ideas, have a look-see if you so wish. Or the audiobook, which is about 6 hours long. It'll give you an idea of what he stands for.

I'm not saying that since they're experienced all experienced people are bad. I'm just saying that experience isn't everything. Just pointing to them having "experience" means nothing. Point to something like "She did this, so she will be able to handle X better than Obama," speaks louder. Just claiming overall experience, or having more time in the White House/Senate/wherever is kinda bunk. Experience doesn't count for anything, it's what kind of experience it is. And even then, what they did back then may not translate to what they may do now. From what I see, Hillary's very experienced with health care...but her proposal was shot down and she was never heard from again. So her experience with health care, therefore, is not one that I'd brag about. Kudos to her for trying, but ultimately it failed in Congress and never was it brought up again. She also has experience voting for and supporting failed wars, which doesn't play well in my mind either. She also has experience being a Republican for the first half of her life. I'm sure she has other experiences that are good ones, I'm sure she's done great stuff for New York. But from what I saw on the news, she never specified what -- she just emphasized how much experience she had, unlike Obama. I need more than that to be convinced that she's "better." Just citing generalized experience means nothing.

And either way, many great presidents had little "experience." Shit, I had no experience doing what I'm doing at my job, but I kick fuckin' ass at it. There's a lot more to look at rather than experience. Like I said, I prefer ideas (and determination) over "experience". You gotta look at all aspects of the nominee, not just one.

[NoFenders]

Experience doesn't count for anything, it's what kind of experience it is.

And either way, many great presidents had little "experience." Shit, I had no experience doing what I'm doing at my job, but I kick fuckin' ass at it. There's a lot more to look at rather than experience. Like I said, I prefer ideas (and determination) over "experience". You gotta look at all aspects of the nominee, not just one.

Any experience is a good experience. If you've been mugged in the park, you can find the good experience to know better next time.

Many great Presidents had at least some experience. You may kick ass at your job, but I'm sure somebody with more experience does it better. Ideas and determination are great qualities, but they can't really get you anywhere without any experience on how to execute. Experience is one major factor in deciding a new leader. Having hope isn't.

:cool:

[QueenAdrock]

If experience means so much, then why did Bush and co. fuck up year after year after year after year? They don't learn from ANYTHING. Their "experience" has taught them nothing, nadda, zilch.

And you're right. Many great presidents have some experience. Guess what? Obama's not a bum off the street. He spent 4 years in the Senate, and he spent years before that in the state legislature. So glad we agree on that point. He has experience on how to execute those ideas, so coupled with his hope, he'll be a great president. (y)

[NoFenders]

He spent 4 years in the Senate, and he spent years before that in the state legislature. He has experience on how to execute those ideas, so coupled with his hope, he'll be a great president. (y)

Can you give me a list of what he's executed in those "4" years???

:cool:

[Bob]

Can you give me a list of what he's executed in those "4" years???

:cool:

why did you put "4" in quotes? do you not acknowledge the number 4?

[DroppinScience]

Many great Presidents had at least some experience.

His experience is roughly equivalent to Abraham Lincoln before he won the presidency. In many circles, he's qualified as a "great" president.

[Bob]

His experience is roughly equivalent to Abraham Lincoln before he won the presidency. In many circles, he's qualified as a "great" president.

he was no jefferson davis

[NoFenders]

I'm not too sure he's done anything or lived anything like Honest Abe did.But we'll see how he handles it if he does get in.


I still can't find a list that isn't all dolled up for Obama. I'd just like to see what's been done from him from point A to B. Having lived here all my life, the only thing he's been famous for around here is being black. I think he named a post office too. Other than that, I'm not sure. I figured this would be the place to look though.

:cool:

[QueenAdrock]

Many great Presidents had at least some experience. You may kick ass at your job, but I'm sure somebody with more experience does it better. Ideas and determination are great qualities, but they can't really get you anywhere without any experience on how to execute. Experience is one major factor in deciding a new leader. Having hope isn't.

:cool:

And also about this -- somebody with more experience in being a reference librarian may do a better job than I'm doing now...but none of the candidates have had experience being President before, so it's a moot point. The whole "experience" debate is comparing apples and oranges...just because you have more experience as a senator doesn't mean that you have what it takes to be President. That's why experience isn't everything. I'd rather have a president with less political experience and saying "I want to give children health care and war veterans full benefits for their education" than seeing someone with more political experience saying "I want to continue the Iraq war for another 100 years." In that respect, experience doesn't mean shit, if you don't agree with a goddamn word they're saying.

[NoFenders]

Anyway, the list. Is there a list as to what he's done or not? I mean, there's got to be something to base your loyalty towards the man on other than what he's said so far. No?

I'm not asking for this to be an ass, I just never liked the guy when he roamed the streets here as king, so I never looked into exactly what he has or hasn't done.

:cool:

[QueenAdrock]

http://www.obama08-wa.com/files/experience.pdf

There's a small thing about what he's done, but there's more on the web if you do a quick search. He's introduced 68 bills on the Senate floor this year, varying bi-partisan stuff. He's also very interested in helping the situation in Darfur; I just got a book from the Save Darfur coalition that has an introduction by Obama and Sen. Brownback. If Obama can work with Brownback to come to an agreement, he can work with anyone.

[NoFenders]

Well thank you.

:cool:

[DroppinScience]

Some more commentary about the Jason Furman appointment from Naomi Klein.

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/06/14/9623/

Obama’s Chicago Boys
by Naomi Klein

Barack Obama waited just three days after Hillary Clinton pulled out of the race to declare, on CNBC, “Look. I am a pro-growth, free-market guy. I love the market.”

Demonstrating that this is no mere spring fling, he has appointed 37-year-old Jason Furman to head his economic policy team. Furman is one of Wal-Mart’s most prominent defenders, anointing the company a “progressive success story.” On the campaign trail, Obama blasted Clinton for sitting on the Wal-Mart board and pledged, “I won’t shop there.” For Furman, however, it’s Wal-Mart’s critics who are the real threat: the “efforts to get Wal-Mart to raise its wages and benefits” are creating “collateral damage” that is “way too enormous and damaging to working people and the economy more broadly for me to sit by idly and sing ‘Kum-Ba-Ya’ in the interests of progressive harmony.” Obama’s love of markets and his desire for “change” are not inherently incompatible. “The market has gotten out of balance,” he says, and it most certainly has. Many trace this profound imbalance back to the ideas of Milton Friedman, who launched a counterrevolution against the New Deal from his perch at the University of Chicago economics department. And here there are more problems, because Obama–who taught law at the University of Chicago for a decade–is thoroughly embedded in the mind-set known as the Chicago School.

He chose as his chief economic adviser Austan Goolsbee, a University of Chicago economist on the left side of a spectrum that stops at the center-right. Goolsbee, unlike his more Friedmanite colleagues, sees inequality as a problem. His primary solution, however, is more education–a line you can also get from Alan Greenspan. In their hometown, Goolsbee has been eager to link Obama to the Chicago School. “If you look at his platform, at his advisers, at his temperament, the guy’s got a healthy respect for markets,” he told Chicago magazine. “It’s in the ethos of the [University of Chicago], which is something different from saying he is laissez-faire.”

Another of Obama’s Chicago fans is 39-year-old billionaire Kenneth Griffin, CEO of the hedge fund Citadel Investment Group. Griffin, who gave the maximum allowable donation to Obama, is something of a poster boy for an unbalanced economy. He got married at Versailles and had the after-party at Marie Antoinette’s vacation spot (Cirque du Soleil performed)–and he is one of the staunchest opponents of closing the hedge-fund tax loophole. While Obama talks about toughening trade rules with China, Griffin has been bending the few barriers that do exist. Despite sanctions prohibiting the sale of police equipment to China, Citadel has been pouring money into controversial China-based security companies that are putting the local population under unprecedented levels of surveillance.

Now is the time to worry about Obama’s Chicago Boys and their commitment to fending off serious attempts at regulation. It was in the two and a half months between winning the 1992 election and being sworn into office that Bill Clinton did a U-turn on the economy. He had campaigned promising to revise NAFTA, adding labor and environmental provisions and to invest in social programs. But two weeks before his inauguration, he met with then-Goldman Sachs chief Robert Rubin, who convinced him of the urgency of embracing austerity and more liberalization. Rubin told PBS, “President Clinton actually made the decision before he stepped into the Oval Office, during the transition, on what was a dramatic change in economic policy.”

Furman, a leading disciple of Rubin, was chosen to head the Brookings Institution’s Hamilton Project, the think tank Rubin helped found to argue for reforming, rather than abandoning, the free-trade agenda. Add to that Goolsbee’s February meeting with Canadian consulate officials, who left with the distinct impression that they had been instructed not to take Obama’s anti-NAFTA campaigning seriously, and there is every reason for concern about a replay of 1993.

The irony is that there is absolutely no reason for this backsliding. The movement launched by Friedman, introduced by Ronald Reagan and entrenched under Clinton, faces a profound legitimacy crisis around the world. Nowhere is this more evident than at the University of Chicago itself. In mid-May, when university president Robert Zimmer announced the creation of a $200 million Milton Friedman Institute, an economic research center devoted to continuing and augmenting the Friedman legacy, a controversy erupted. More than 100 faculty members signed a letter of protest. “The effects of the neoliberal global order that has been put in place in recent decades, strongly buttressed by the Chicago School of Economics, have by no means been unequivocally positive,” the letter states. “Many would argue that they have been negative for much of the world’s population.”

When Friedman died in 2006, such bold critiques of his legacy were largely absent. The adoring memorials spoke only of grand achievement, with one of the more prominent appreciations appearing in the New York Times–written by Austan Goolsbee. Yet now, just two years later, Friedman’s name is seen as a liability even at his own alma mater. So why has Obama chosen this moment, when all illusions of a consensus have dropped away, to go Chicago retro?

The news is not all bad. Furman claims he will be drawing on the expertise of two Keynesian economists: Jared Bernstein of the Economic Policy Institute and James Galbraith, son of Friedman’s nemesis John Kenneth Galbraith. Our “current economic crisis,” Obama recently said, did not come from nowhere. It is “the logical conclusion of a tired and misguided philosophy that has dominated Washington for far too long.”

True enough. But before Obama can purge Washington of the scourge of Friedmanism, he has some ideological housecleaning of his own to do.

Naomi Klein is the author of many books, including her most recent, The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism.Visit Naomi’s website at www.naomiklein.org, or to learn more about her new book, visit www.shockdoctrine.com .

[alien autopsy]

experience and presidency....

the president is nothing more than a front-figure media man who carries out the agenda of vested interests and corporate lobbyists. he starts wars, invades countries, lies to the american people and tries to act with dignity to maintain the sense of faith that drives american people into believing in democracy, or representative democracy or republic or whatever it is we call it.

experience and the presidency is corruption. it is deceit. it is shameful. experience in the presidency involves outrageous sums of laundered money and the buying and selling of nations of people. sometimes the exploitation of entire nations. sometimes the death of nations.

experience and the presidency.

[Bob]

i'm glad we have a seasoned vet like you to tell us what's what, i appreciate the reality checks

[saz]

i find it incredibly perplexing that people would vote for the lesser evil or a puppet, and not vote for what they believe in.

[DroppinScience]

i find it incredibly perplexing that people would vote for the lesser evil or a puppet, and not vote for what they believe in.

I know where you're coming from on this, but I think in American elections (at least those of 2000, 2004, and now 2008) you have no choice but to go with the lesser of two evils and not what you believe in (unless of course you believe in the lesser of two evils). I have the luxury of living in Canada and I tend to vote for the NDP or the Green Party for federal elections (as opposed to the Liberal Party, the lesser of two evils) because they were who I thought was best at the time. Even if the greater of two evils prevail (such as the Conservative Party right now), it doesn't mean that we're about to invade Lesotho or Chad on a whim.

If it really is between McCain running for essentially a third Bush term and Obama, a candidate that is at least not willing to immediately invade any country that looks at him funny, I think I'm going to go with Obama and be happy with that choice. Lesser of two evils? You bet, but lesser of two evils means that the greater evil is not prevailing. And that is a start, right?

In short: stakes are just too high this time around for America. Get back to me when (and if) things aren't so hectic and I might be telling you something different, but for now, it'll be Obama even if he's not the messiah.

[saz]

no, people in the states can also vote for independent candidates, the green party, the libertarian party, even socialist candidates. it all depends on though who gets on the ballot in any given state.

i've also always voted ndp. be careful with the green party though. the federal party was previously led by a former progressive conservative, while ontario's green party is all for privatization and relying on the free market, etc. however, they should be included in all of the debates. we are very lucky, we have a parliamentary form of government, and we're not trapped in the two party, corporate, big lobbyist system.

[DroppinScience]

Yeah, the Greens can be a little funny, but it was probably just my one break away from the NDP, but I'll likely be back to them next time around.

[Bob]

i find it incredibly perplexing that people would vote for the lesser evil or a puppet, and not vote for what they believe in.

it's kind of like, you're in a room, there's you and two guys, and they offer you three choices; you can either have one of the guys cut your balls off, have the other guy punch you in the stomach, or you can walk out of the room, but if you do that the first guy is going to block you before you can get there and then cut your balls off.

i mean i understand what you mean, it's frustrating that we're locked in the mindset of "a third party candidate will never win so voting for one would be a waste of a vote" and the only reason that's true is because everyone believes it, but it's not so easy to break out of it because, again, everyone believes it. everyone would have to snap out of it at once and i think it would take something rather monumental to have that happen.

maybe voting for obama and getting fucked anyway will help disillusion people

[Documad]

i find it incredibly perplexing that people would vote for the lesser evil or a puppet, and not vote for what they believe in.

It's no news that we're opposites. Every year, my most frustrating door knocking experiences occur when I accidentally knock on the door of a green.

Here's how it went down for me:

In 1996, I was living in a state that skews solid blue. Going into the election, polls showed that Clinton would win in a blow out (about 55% of the vote), Dole would get about 30%, and Perot would get about 10% in my state. I was pissed off an Clinton for a whole bunch of reasons but couldn't support the other two, so I voted for Nader in protest. I could do this because no matter how I voted, Clinton was going to win and Clinton was the better of the two viable candidates. I did it on a whim. I was starting a big new job that day, I was nervous as hell, and I ran to the polling place super early to get it over with and get to work. I had to vote for some state candidates so I really had to vote but the Nader vote is embarrassing to me and I haven't shared that with many people in my real life.

In 2000, I was living in a state where we had a horse race. Going into the election, Gore had a slight lead over Bush. It was clear that Nader could not win. It was clear to me that, even though I was not a Gore fan, my lot in life, and my country, would be better off if Gore won. So I voted for Gore.

And it needs to be said that Nader would be a truly shitty president. I don't believe in him as a politician. He does not have the skill set. Not even close. I could never vote for him if I thought he had a chance of winning!

There is no doubt in my mind that the country would be better off today if all americans had voted for the lesser of two evils. There was a very real difference between Gore and Bush and between Kerry and Bush.

[Documad]

I don't want to start a new thread, but if you're reading: DS, yeahwho, and QA, are you surprised by Obama's position on the FISA bill? I'm not surprised but I wonder what his fans think.

[saz]

it's kind of like, you're in a room, there's you and two guys, and they offer you three choices; you can either have one of the guys cut your balls off, have the other guy punch you in the stomach, or you can walk out of the room, but if you do that the first guy is going to block you before you can get there and then cut your balls off.

no, it's not like that at all dude. every american, depending on who gets on the ballot in your state, has the choice to vote for third, fourth or fifth party candidates, or independent candidates.

the problem is with the media. they are only generally interested in the fabricated "horse race" scenario, and for them it all comes down to who has the most money, who gives the best speech, who is the most popular, who looks or sounds better, who acts more presidential etc. the corporate media is fixated on superficial, bullshit aspects and not the issues, which i think probably matters most to the average american.


i mean i understand what you mean, it's frustrating that we're locked in the mindset of "a third party candidate will never win so voting for one would be a waste of a vote" and the only reason that's true is because everyone believes it, but it's not so easy to break out of it because, again, everyone believes it. everyone would have to snap out of it at once and i think it would take something rather monumental to have that happen.

maybe voting for obama and getting fucked anyway will help disillusion people

i know what you mean by that mindset. that mindset dicates that someone should vote for mccain because he can win. or, they should vote for obama, and not necessarily because they want obama (or kerry or gore) to win, but rather as a defensive move to put the block on mccain (or bush) from winning. i just don't get the logic of not voting for the candidate that i want to win. when i go to the polls, i vote for the person and party i want to be elected, regardless of whether the candidate or party has a chance or not. if more people took this approach, then 3rd, 4th, and 5th party candidates would have more of a chance and the states could finally move away from the stranglehold both major parties and big business have on the country.

it can happen. jesse ventura was a former pro wrestler. initially nobody took him seriously, and he was ridiculed just like nader. but he was elected governor of minnesota as a third party candidate and i believe connecticut elected an independent governor a few decades or so back.

my vote still counts as one vote, just like everyone else's vote. dude, you shouldn't really care if 99.99999% of the country is going to vote mccain/obama, thats their choice, i don't think you should vote based on who others say they are voting for, or if those people ridicule independent or third party candidates because "they can't win". it would be silly if you or someone voted based on other people's silly logic, right?

both parties (dems enabling bush: iraq, patriot act, war funding) have run the states into the shitter. the two major candidates are both millionaires. even if the dems win this election, just how much will the democrats change things? given that they've caved in all the time to bush and the republicans, and fail to take any initiative, i'm not so optimistic. but, even if obama suddenly comes up with a bold strategy to get all of the troops out of iraq, gas will never be two dollars a gallon again, at least for a long time. america will still be viewed unfavourably around the world due to the former reckless cowboy president. the way i see it, is unless the dems wake-up and champion and achieve universal healthcare; a strong, livable minimum wage; scrap nafta; rebuild new orleans; reign in the telecommunications companies and re-establish the true rule of law, the constitution, etc; and crack down on corporate crime; otherwise, voting for one of the major parties is a vote to be continued to be screwed.




And it needs to be said that Nader would be a truly shitty president. I don't believe in him as a politician. He does not have the skill set. Not even close. I could never vote for him if I thought he had a chance of winning!

how do you know? that's the same rational that people use when they argue that obama couldn't handle the job as president because he doesn't have the experience. i think both nader and obama could easily handle the job. they are both extremely intelligent, skilled, quick on their feet, crafty, nuanced, very intellectually inclined, and rational thinkers and individuals. obama has the edge in the oratory department, but very, very few can give straight, direct answers, or straight talk like ralph. ralph is my ideological preference obviously, but arguing that either couldn't handle the job is wrong.

[Bob]

no, it's not like that at all dude. every american, depending on who gets on the ballot in your state, has the choice to vote for third, fourth or fifth party candidates, or independent candidates.


every american can, but 99.9999% of americans won't. not in november 2008. given that premise, my choices, as an individual bob stepping into the polling place are these:

1) vote for mccain, who i do not want to be president
2) vote for obama, who would not be a perfect president, but who i actually wouldn't mind being president
3) vote for a third party candidate who would also not be a perfect president but that i like more than the other two and at worst, let mccain be president or at best, not accomplish anything outside of allowing me to pat myself on the back on my way home

it's fucked up that it's like that, and probably more fucked up that i go along with it, but it will take some drastic changes in the way that americans cast their vote in order to make voting for american third party candidates a worthy endeavor and i really don't see it happening before november 2008.

besides, i really genuinely do look forward to obama winning. either he'll actually make the changes that he's promised, or people will notice that the candidate who based his entire campaign on the promise of change failed to actually change anything, and people will get pissed off enough to actually change something. or they'll just not notice. i don't know. either way i'm curious to see what will happen.

[Documad]

I've thought Nader is a bit nuts since I used to watch him on Donahue as a kid. He is clearly not my kind of guy. I could never be convinced otherwise. I've got to admit I'm not open minded. He's the kind of guy who would never move out of his mom's house.

He's a bit of a one trick pony. The consumer protection stuff was a good trick and he had a huge impact because of that, but in my opinion he cannot be compared with politicians. I know that there are people who love Nader because he's not a politician but I happen to think that the US president should be a highly skilled politician. The job responsibilities involve making people work together even when they don't want to. It should involve diplomacy and building coalitions. It should involve people skills. I don't see any of those skills with Nader. I see those skills in Obama. I'm not one of the people who decries his lack of experience. Instead I question whether his fans know his core values and whether he's going to be a skilled enough politician to win, but stuff like changing his position on FISA and courting fat cat corporate dudes shows me that he's a politician rather than an idealist.

This is part of my disappointment with Nader and what I view as his massively expanding ego. As a consumer advocate, he had a loud and important voice. He threw that away by deciding to become an amateur politician. I think that was a dumb move and given the fact that he had no hope of getting anywhere, I have to think he did it merely to stroke his ego/court attention. I think it's too bad because he could have remained an important voice on consumer issues.

[saz]

3) vote for a third party candidate who would also not be a perfect president but that i like more than the other two and at worst, let mccain be president or at best, not accomplish anything outside of allowing me to pat myself on the back on my way home.

it's fucked up that it's like that, and probably more fucked up that i go along with it, but it will take some drastic changes in the way that americans cast their vote in order to make voting for american third party candidates a worthy endeavor and i really don't see it happening before november 2008.

yes, it is quite disappointing that you have that attitude or approach as well, that voting for a third party or candidate would "let mccain be president", and that it would "not accomplish anything outside of allowing me to pat myself on the back".

no, voting for what you believe in would not let mccain be president. if however americans were to elect john mccain after eight disastrous years of bush, then americans have issues. that wouldn't be the fault of people who vote for a third party, it would be the fault of the morons who voted for a third bush term.

also, if voting for what you believe in would not accomplish anything, outside of allowing yourself to pat yourself on the back, then what would voting for someone you don't want to win, or your second choice, or you kind of want to win, or strategic voting, accomplish?

of course any major changes probably won't occur before november of this year, but it all starts with the media and their coverage, and getting more candidates into the debates.

incidently, cynthia mckinney is very realistic about her chances running for the nomination of the green party. she knows that she won't be walking into the white house come january. however, her goal is to achieve a 5% vote share, which i'm pretty sure qualifies parties for federal funding and/or assistance, which would be a big bonus.

I've thought Nader is a bit nuts since I used to watch him on Donahue as a kid. He is clearly not my kind of guy. I could never be convinced otherwise. I've got to admit I'm not open minded. He's the kind of guy who would never move out of his mom's house.

He's a bit of a one trick pony. The consumer protection stuff was a good trick and he had a huge impact because of that, but in my opinion he cannot be compared with politicians. I know that there are people who love Nader because he's not a politician but I happen to think that the US president should be a highly skilled politician. The job responsibilities involve making people work together even when they don't want to. It should involve diplomacy and building coalitions. It should involve people skills. I don't see any of those skills with Nader. I see those skills in Obama. I'm not one of the people who decries his lack of experience. Instead I question whether his fans know his core values and whether he's going to be a skilled enough politician to win, but stuff like changing his position on FISA and courting fat cat corporate dudes shows me that he's a politician rather than an idealist.

This is part of my disappointment with Nader and what I view as his massively expanding ego. As a consumer advocate, he had a loud and important voice. He threw that away by deciding to become an amateur politician. I think that was a dumb move and given the fact that he had no hope of getting anywhere, I have to think he did it merely to stroke his ego/court attention. I think it's too bad because he could have remained an important voice on consumer issues.

i vehemently disagree as i view nader possessing those skills. and you may call them "tricks", but i prefer to refer to his consumer protection advocacy as major, landmark achievements.

i agree about obama though. i think that it reveals that obama is somewhat slimey in that respect; that he double talks. he talks about bringing change to washington etc, but meanwhile he's courting wall street financial tycoons who don't give a rat's ass about the problems of everyday americans.

and well, what politican doesn't have an ego? that's a very common criticism of nader, as if no other politician doesn't have a big ego, only ralph does.

anyways, most importantly, nader made a fantastic move by getting into politics. due to ralph's high profile, skills, relentless campaigning and energy, the green party has successfully built and established a grass roots, from the ground up political movement, with 228 greens (http://www.gp.org/elections/officeholders/2008-06-15-Green-Officeholders.xls) currently holding office at local levels. ralph really got the ball rolling for them in '96, and they're getting closer and closer to taking much more major offices. he really put the party on the map, established them as a legitimate progressive voice and party. notice too that nader's run in '96 certainly made some noise. this was due of course to clinton's embrace of nafta, gutting welfare and adopting republican economic policy. people always wondered about the deep divisions of the red and blue states. well, a great deal of it was due to bill: thomas franks' what's the matter with kansas? (http://dir.salon.com/story/books/int/2004/06/28/tomfranks/) examined the effect of clinton's economic policies on middle america, and why millions of traditional democratic voters switched to voting republican. that's why ralph got into politics in '96. he saw what the democrats were doing, and how the dems were becoming a republican-lite party, another party that does the bidding of big business, that the differences between the two were disappearing. and that's also why greens and independent progressives really want to see the democrats steal at least some of their platform. look at fdr, how successful he was, and how revered he is for stealing so many of the socialist party's platform. regardless, ralph strongly believes in the role of third parties, as they've accomplished a great deal (women's suffrage, anti-slavery, socialist, farmers) and i hope he continues to run.

[DroppinScience]

I don't want to start a new thread, but if you're reading: DS, yeahwho, and QA, are you surprised by Obama's position on the FISA bill? I'm not surprised but I wonder what his fans think.

Just did some reading up on this, and am alarmed to hear this news. After hearing about his economics and now this, I'm left wondering... what kind of "change" was Obama talking about in the first place?

(n)

[RobMoney$]

He hasn't even been formally introduced at the DNC and his supporters are already abandoning ship on Obama? Wonderful.

I urge anyone who has second thoughts about Obama to do something about it NOW. Write to your Democratic Politicians and to Obama himself and tell them how you feel. Tell them you were wrong in supporting Obama in the primary. Urge your local Democrats to support Hillary at the convention before it's too late.

Obama's candidacy isn't etched in stone just yet. Super delegates could still influence the nomination in Hillary's favor.

[Laver1969]

Just did some reading up on this, and am alarmed to hear this news. After hearing about his economics and now this, I'm left wondering... what kind of "change" was Obama talking about in the first place?

(n)

DS, can you link me up with the reading you did? I found this from from February, 08. Shwinky Linky (http://obama.senate.gov/press/080212-obama_statement_122/)

*edit* just found this Dulinky (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/06/20/obama_supports_fisa_legislatio.html)

[DroppinScience]

DS, can you link me up with the reading you did? I found this from from February, 08. Shwinky Linky (http://obama.senate.gov/press/080212-obama_statement_122/)

*edit* just found this Dulinky (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/06/20/obama_supports_fisa_legislatio.html)

These were the two articles I saw having to do with FISA and Obama.

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/06/25/9871/

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/06/25/9868/ (this one is Obama-specific)

[saz]

I don't want to start a new thread, but if you're reading: DS, yeahwho, and QA, are you surprised by Obama's position on the FISA bill? I'm not surprised but I wonder what his fans think.


The 15 Dems Who Tried To Block Telecom Immunity

On Thursday, the United State Senate voted overwhelmingly to advance a legislative compromise on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, marking the beginning of the end of a fierce battle over civil liberties and national security that has been waged in the halls of Congress for more than three years.

And yet, for all of the political passions the issue engendered, the fight over FISA ended with something of a whimper. The final product -- much to the consternation of the progressive community -- gave the president wide authority to monitor terrorist suspects and collect communications from U.S. citizens without review. It also offered telecommunications companies that helped with the previously illegal program immunity from lawsuits, a hard provision to swallow for the program's opponents.

In the end, only 15 U.S. Senators were willing to resort to procedural tactics as a last ditch effort to hold up the legislation. The list of those who voted against cloture included:

Joseph Biden, DE
Barbara Boxer, CA
Sherrod Brown, OH
Maria Cantwell, WA
Chris Dodd, CT
Dick Durbin, IL
Russ Feingold, WI
Tom Harkin, IA
John Kerry, MA
Frank Lautenberg, NJ
Patrick Leahy, VT
Robert Menendez, NJ
Bernie Sanders, VT
Chuck Schumer, NY
Ron Wyden, OR

Sen. Barack Obama, a reluctant supporter of the bill, said he would work to strip telecom immunity from its language. However, he added, "My view on FISA has always been that the issue of the phone companies per se is not one that overrides the security interests of the American people."

Others were not so willing to concede. Sen. Chris Dodd, who left the campaign trail before Iowa to threaten a filibuster of a FISA compromise that included immunity, today bemoaned the fact that the public would never know the scope of the administration's actions.

"We're closing the door, never to know why this happened, who ordered it, why did they avoid [the courts], what was behind their thinking," said the Connecticut Democrat. "And that is a dangerous step for us."

Sen. Russ Feingold, another aggressive opponent of the compromise, spoke with sorrow over his party's unwillingness to put up a principled fight.

"It's the latest chapter of running for cover when the Administration tries to intimidate Democrats on national security issues," he told The Young Turks radio show. "It's the most embarrassing failure of the Democrats I've seen since 2006, other than the failure to vote to end the Iraq war. These are the two real sad aspects of an otherwise pretty good record. It's letting George Bush and Dick Cheney have their way even though they're that unpopular and on their way out. It's really incredible."

link (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/26/the-15-dems-who-tried-to_n_109304.html)

[yeahwho]

This thread has some pretty interesting twists and turns, I do not see some sort of exodus of Obama supporters due to the FISA vote, just like Clinton he did the politically expedient thing and voted yea, I don't like it, the FISA bill has been twisted into a monster, it started in 1978, due to, of all things, Watergate,

The act created a court which meets in secret, and approves or denies requests for search warrants. Only the number of warrants applied for, issued and denied, is reported. In 1980 (the first full year after its inception), it approved 322 warrants. This number has steadily grown to 2224 warrants in 2006. In the period 1979-2006 a total of 22,990 applications for warrants were made to the Court of which 22,985 were approved (sometimes with modifications; or with the splitting up, or combining together, of warrants for legal purposes), and only 5 were definitively rejected.


The focus on Obama is justified and important, he will not lose his support from his yea vote on the FISA amendment, but skepticism which entered this campaign from Clintonite's and those who vote third party candidates is bound to enter the arena as we see more and more Obama not standing down on anything remotely making him look weak on Terrorism. That will not happen. He is running against a war hero, a man who will make all previous patriots running for president look like milquetoast.

It's perception from here on out. This is "la la land" time. I feel compromised and I did compromise when I decided to back Obama. I'll keep whoring for Obama mainly because I do believe in the future and I do believe a political shift will be inevitable once Obama is in office. Obama did two things, he strengthened his posture as tough on terrorism and continued to fuck with his left leaning supporters. The cards he's carrying are strengthened by this play and his hand will be a much stronger hand come November, sorry for the poker analogy, but I'm not sure how else to put it.

Hillary voted yea, Nader abstained from voting because... will because he has never held an elected government position.

[DroppinScience]

The liberal "blogosphere" is also betrayed by this decision.

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/06/26/9907/

Published on Thursday, June 26, 2008 by Politico.com
Netroots Feel Jilted by Obama’s FISA Stand
by Carrie Budoff Brown

When former Sen. John Edwards dropped out of the presidential race, the progressive Netroots took their affections to Barack Obama, defending him against attack from Hillary Rodham Clinton and others.

But with his support of a government surveillance bill that offers retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies - a bill that he vowed last year to filibuster - the honeymoon has ended.

Disappointed over his position on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the online activists feel jilted and betrayed and have taken to questioning his progressive credentials. One prominent blogger, Atrios, has even given him the moniker “Wanker of the Day.”

“He broke faith,” said Matt Stoller, a political consultant and blogger at OpenLeft.com. “Obama pledged to filibuster, and he is part of that old politics, in this case, that he said he wasn’t. It will spur us to challenge him.”

The FISA debate marks the presumptive Democratic nominee’s first serious break from the liberal Netroots in the general election. He is still their candidate, but the FISA issue has reignited skepticism among major bloggers, who had largely pushed aside doubts about Obama when Edwards, their favored candidate, ended his bid in February.

Obama’s post-partisan persona hasn’t always meshed so well with the noisy and contentious Netroots, and his rise to prominence has come without their full-throated support. He told reporters in February that he doesn’t read blogs and has long been viewed as cool to the Netroots - a notion that the candidate’s new media director, Joe Rospars, disputed this week at the Personal Democracy Forum in New York, saying Obama was a favorite of the readers of the major bloggers.

Either way, the Netroots eventually took Obama’s side against Clinton, and some came to view him as a champion of progressive causes.

His stance on the FISA bill, however, has brought Obama back down to earth, in part because the liberal blogosphere cares more about civil liberties than many of the other traditional issues that have long dominated the Democratic agenda. While the mainstream media fixated on Obama’s decision to opt out of the public financing system - and newspaper editorial boards eviscerated him - the Netroots commended Obama for showing political savvy. After all, the readers of liberal blogs are many of the small donors who gave Obama reason to reject public financing.

FISA, however, was different. Many of the most popular progressive blogs built their following by mining anger toward President Bush, the Iraq war and what bloggers view as his disregard of the Constitution and the civil liberties guaranteed by it. By granting immunity to telecom companies, civil courts will likely dismiss lawsuits that might unearth details about the administration’s activities, eliminating an opportunity to hold Bush accountable.

“It angers the blogosphere to its core,” said Jane Hamsher, founder of the popular blog Firedoglake.com. “We want to be able to know: What did you do? If we can get that information, we can make sure they don’t do that again. We can get the public engaged.”

Obama’s decision to support the bill with the immunity provision was not surprising, she said. Republicans frame critics of such security measures as soft on terrorism, and the presumptive Democratic nominee probably does not want it used against him.

“[A] lot of people tried to convince themselves that he was a progressive hero, and I think they were disappointed,” Hamsher said. “You can feel a real shift in the zeitgeist online.”

Still, the disillusionment goes only so far. The liberal blogosphere’s most recognizable name, Markos Moulitsas Zuniga, founder of Daily Kos, said Monday on MSNBC’s “Countdown With Keith Olbermann”: “Let’s be honest, it is either Obama or John McCain. So we really don’t have much of a choice.”

At stake for Obama in the FISA vote is the intensity of support for Obama, Moulitsas said.

“I don’t want to hear him talk about leadership. I don’t want to hear him talk about defending the Constitution. I want to see him do it,” he said. “If he does, it will increase the intensity and level of support he gets from base Democrats. If he doesn’t, we may worry he is just another one of these spineless Democrats who are more afraid of controversy in doing the right thing than they are in actually doing the right thing.”

Already, Blue America PAC, a liberal online fundraising group, says it has raised more than $320,000 to fund activities “holding our elected representatives responsible for rubber-stamping the most grievous aspects of the Bush Regime’s agenda.”

MoveOn.org has called upon its members to pressure Obama to “keep his word” and block the bill. Obama gave no indication that he would support a filibuster, and a press aide did not respond to requests for clarification on this point.

The Senate overwhelmingly rejected the filibuster attempt Wednesday, voting 80-15 to end debate and move to final passage Thursday. Obama, who was not present for Wednesday’s test vote, is expected to vote for an amendment stripping out the immunity provision. But even if the effort fails, as it has in the past, Obama would likely back the underlying bill.

By taking this position, Obama is threading the needle between Republican charges that he is weak on security and the desires of the Democratic base. To allay critics’ claims that he is giving a pass to the Bush administration, Obama aides pointed to a provision in the bill that requires an inspector general’s review of the surveillance program.

“It is not all that I would want,” Obama said of the legislation, which was negotiated by congressional leaders of both parties. “But given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence-collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise but do so with a firm pledge that, as president, I will carefully monitor the program, review the report by the inspectors general and work with the Congress to take any additional steps I deem necessary to protect the lives - and the liberty - of the American people.”

Obama’s statement was viewed as a reversal from a pledge last year to oppose any bill with retroactive immunity for telecom companies.

But Obama told reporters Wednesday that the bill has changed from when that pledge was made, saying the latest version satisfied several of his concerns.

Dan Gerstein, a New York political consultant and former longtime aide to Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.), said Obama now needs to stand by his support of the bill, given Republican efforts to brand Obama as a “reflexive, partisan liberal.” “This is really an important initial test for Obama,” he said.

“People will be looking at this to see whether he has the strength and independence to stand up to his friends and a significant support base and say, ‘I think this is right, and I am going to hold firm in my position.’”

The Netroots will be watching Thursday as the Senate considers the bill - and whether Obama simply casts his vote or whether he takes a strong stand in a floor speech.

“The fear out there is that Obama is going to fail to live up to expectations on key issues, and that reinforces the notion that ‘uh-oh, we picked the wrong candidate,’ when the focus should really be on the fact that the Bush administration broke the law with the help of private companies,” said Warren Street, a blogger at the Blue Girl, Red State blog.

[alien autopsy]

when will america wake the fuck up?


obama is a corpo-fraud like the rest of them. of course he voted to spy on americans. like he wanted change.

[DroppinScience]

[I]In the end, only 15 U.S. Senators were willing to resort to procedural tactics as a last ditch effort to hold up the legislation. The list of those who voted against cloture included:

Joseph Biden, DE
Barbara Boxer, CA
Sherrod Brown, OH
Maria Cantwell, WA
Chris Dodd, CT
Dick Durbin, IL
Russ Feingold, WI
Tom Harkin, IA
John Kerry, MA
Frank Lautenberg, NJ
Patrick Leahy, VT
Robert Menendez, NJ
Bernie Sanders, VT
Chuck Schumer, NY
Ron Wyden, OR

I applaud these 15 individuals here for taking a principled stand. Why oh why couldn't the rest of the Democrats (and even a few responsible Republicans) show such strength?

[yeahwho]

Lettting these sort of negative portrayals of betrayal and of Obama's " march to the center" become a standard for left wing bloggies and message boards are really the only sort of hope the Republican party has.

Charles Krauthammer, a neocon to the core has manipulated this to high art today (6/29/08) in this cleverly titled Ed/Op piece for the Washington Post and other syndicated papers, Obama's long march to the center (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2008021617_krauthammer29.html), generally based on innuendo and half truths to paint a picture of everything Obama does as a manipulation of the system and a complete abandonment of his constituency.

It's very clever and actually sort of fun to read, but it is also total horseshit. Charles would love to plant seeds of doubt into the electorate asap, because his true agenda is to continue with the neo-con agenda of chaos. Of this I am sure.

Just saying that, when the enemy starts to fuel your doubts, beware. A very big prize is due to those that win this race. What little bit of that trickles down to you and me will be decide by how we percieve these messages.

[DroppinScience]

Oh please, don't be ridiculous. Charles Krauthammer is not the one fueling my (legitimate) criticism of Obama coming from a very specifically progressive point of view. Krauthammer is a tool and |I have strong doubts that he's the one who makes the lefty bloggers feel betrayed by Obama.

If there is a tinge of despair in these turn of events, it's out of my desire for a true direction away from neo-conservative policies. If you are an enabler to these disastrous policies, you're really no better than Bush and his ilk.

[saz]

Lettting these sort of negative portrayals of betrayal and of Obama's " march to the center" become a standard for left wing bloggies and message boards are really the only sort of hope the Republican party has.






I have always been a huge supporter and vocal proponent of Kucinich

I'm for it.. my man Dennis Kucinich doing his job while all the others sit around with their thumbs up their asses while the whole fucking country goes into the crapper, WTF? What is wrong with people?

as you can see, I really wanted Kucinich, I'm much more hippy for either of these two candidates.


I would still be much happier with Dennis Kucinich than either of these two candidates

I think Kucinich is miles above all of the other candidates that were in the race.



dude, you can't have it both ways. either you're a kucinich supporter, and are opposed to immunity for telecommunication corporations, or you're not.

[Lyman Zerga]

for yeahwho's defence: i love his avatar!

[yeahwho]

Oh please, don't be ridiculous. Charles Krauthammer is not the one fueling my (legitimate) criticism of Obama coming from a very specifically progressive point of view. Krauthammer is a tool and |I have strong doubts that he's the one who makes the lefty bloggers feel betrayed by Obama.

If there is a tinge of despair in these turn of events, it's out of my desire for a true direction away from neo-conservative policies. If you are an enabler to these disastrous policies, you're really no better than Bush and his ilk.

The mainstream media is not nearly as concerned about the FISA bill as the progressive bloggos, and of course the mainstream does have one writer jumping on your party, the infamous "no anus" Charles Krauthammer. When he agrees with you and pretty much begins to mimic you, well thats not a coincidence. His fondest hope is to paint Obama as an unprincipled candidate to you, reaffirm the doubts and dissapointment your having over the FISA bill and any other garbage he can throw out there.

Perception is the name of the game, I know you researched your FISA very well before today and this Charles piece, which is good, but he also researched your research and painted a picture of a candidate willing to sell out his mother for the presidency.

Hats off to you and your ability to deciphor the FISA vote as being a bad choice and also a turn more right for Obama.

What I'm saying is percetion is being thrown out by the enemy of Barack Obama and he has deciced to use the leftist bloggies to spin his perception.

It's not ridiculous, it's reality. Perception must begin and it has.

dude, you can't have it both ways. either you're a kucinich supporter, and are opposed to immunity for telecommunication corporations, or you're not.

I'm not supporting Kucinich, I've said this several times, I know Kucinich will lose and he already has. I'm out here whoring for Obama.

[yeahwho]

for yeahwho's defence: i love his avatar!
Which should be more than enough to make these guys realize, dudes avatar fucking says it all, he's smiling, hes got a nice summer hat and hes keeping it real.

[Lyman Zerga]

word.

[yeahwho]

pssssssssst, McCain is "funneling money to Charlie"...

[saz]

The mainstream media is not nearly as concerned about the FISA bill as the progressive bloggos, and of course the mainstream does have one writer jumping on your party, the infamous "no anus" Charles Krauthammer.

the mainstream media also gave the bush admin a free pass during the run-up to the iraq war, and helped the admin by dishing out their propaganda. the mainstream media was complicit in selling the war. the mainstream media has also been giving john mccain a free pass, with many still refering to him as a "maverick" which is a total crock. pointing out that the mainstream media isn't as concerned about obama's submission on fisa isn't a strong argument or point at all. it's a rather weak and flimsy one.


When he agrees with you and pretty much begins to mimic you, well thats not a coincidence. His fondest hope is to paint Obama as an unprincipled candidate to you, reaffirm the doubts and dissapointment your having over the FISA bill and any other garbage he can throw out there.

no, the republicans are just incredibly desperate to attack obama in any shape, manner, or form possible. you're arguing that progressives and those on the left should shut up, because charles krauthammer is raising the same objections, even though this is what republicans want - for the dems to cave in on key issues and continue to cave. you're reasoning or argument makes no sense. you are so blinded by your devotion to obama that you can't see how flawed your argument is.

according to your logic then, any future issues that obama or the dems cave in on, all progressives and those on the left should keep quiet if republicans raise the same questions or criticisms.


I'm not supporting Kucinich, I've said this several times, I know Kucinich will lose and he already has. I'm out here whoring for Obama.

you missed the point. you've claimed several times that you're a kucinich democrat or kucinich supporter. meanwhile, dennis kucinich and kucinich supporters would not stand nor tolerate such a horrendous cop-out or caving in to the demands of republicans.

[Documad]

for yeahwho's defence: i love his avatar!

He always has the best avatar on the board. I wish I had his Mannix avatar.

[yeahwho]

the mainstream media also gave the bush admin a free pass during the run-up to the iraq war, and helped the admin by dishing out their propaganda. the mainstream media was complicit in selling the war. the mainstream media has also been giving john mccain a free pass, with many still refering to him as a "maverick" which is a total crock. pointing out that the mainstream media isn't as concerned about obama's submission on fisa isn't a strong argument or point at all. it's a rather weak and flimsy one.

There are multiple issues to respond to in the above paragraph and I'm really not sure where to start so my best answer to the above is this,

The mainstream media serves a purpose, it sums up the bulk populations IQ, therefore it gives a very good representation of how much one can get away with. It also is a barometer of the voters pulse and how the average voter thinks. Politics of fear is still a red hot item, the average citizen still thinks the government is not doing enough to protect them from terrorist attacks. I think the mainstream media in reality is just not as concerned about FISA because mainstream readers have trust the secret courts will do the right thing.

You, me and a few million others think we're getting fucked. But 10's of millions don't, therefore my argument is not weak nor flimsy... just fact.

you're arguing that progressives and those on the left should shut up, because charles krauthammer is raising the same objections, even though this is what republicans want - for the dems to cave in on key issues and continue to cave. you're reasoning or argument makes no sense. you are so blinded by your devotion to obama that you can't see how flawed your argument is, according to your logic then, any future issues that obama or the dems cave in on, all progressives and those on the left should keep quiet if republicans raise the same questions or criticisms.

Not exactly and I blame my own poor writing for not getting the point across, what I'm trying to demonstrate is rightwingers are not stupid, just nutjobs, so using the same rhetoric as disenchanted leftwingers is a tool. Whenever that tool is being played perception should rapidly change to McCain calls his wife a cunt. Because afterall why shouldn't leftwingers have some fun?



you missed the point. you've claimed several times that you're a kucinich democrat or kucinich supporter. meanwhile, dennis kucinich and kucinich supporters would not stand nor tolerate such a horrendous cop-out or caving in to the demands of republicans.

I'm not even rermotely interested in losing this election due to political dissappointment, I know Obama is head and shoulders a much more moral, caring and intelligent man than McCain. Whatever it takes I'm willing to go the length, call me the pink triangle of Obama gay love I do not give a shit, I still have to walk around here in the USA come 1/20/09 (http://wilstar.com/bushcountdown.htm), I ain't going to let it be anything like the last 8 years.

[RobMoney$]

He always has the best avatar on the board. I wish I had his Mannix avatar.


What are you people talking about? He changes his avatar like every other day,...to the point that it's pretty annoying how much it changes.

I associate people on here with their avatar. Yeahwho changes his too often to gain any sort of identity.

[yeahwho]

What are you people talking about? He changes his avatar like every other day,...to the point that it's pretty annoying how much it changes.

I associate people on here with their avatar. Yeahwho changes his too often to gain any sort of identity.

What are you like 100 years old? C'mon loosen up and have some fun, I'm not here on business. Now my avatar changing pesters you.

I think your the only person I've ever come across since Junior High who has actually gone out of their way to either continually harass me or at one point advocated I just leave, whats up with that?

I mean really, this is fun to me or I wouldn't bother coming here, I enjoy it.

What is your reasoning?

[NoFenders]

I'd say the monkey is the best one yet.

:cool:

[yeahwho]

I'd say the monkey is the best one yet.

:cool:

Thanks, but nothing beats :cool:

[saz]

The mainstream media serves a purpose, it sums up the bulk populations IQ, therefore it gives a very good representation of how much one can get away with. It also is a barometer of the voters pulse and how the average voter thinks. Politics of fear is still a red hot item, the average citizen still thinks the government is not doing enough to protect them from terrorist attacks. I think the mainstream media in reality is just not as concerned about FISA because mainstream readers have trust the secret courts will do the right thing.

the mainstream media sums up the "bulk populations IQ"? i'd say that the mainstream media only really wants to cover what it wants to, with its coverage and reporting dictated by what can earn a profit, given that the media is controlled by a few, large corporate conglomerates. and insinuating that the mainstream media is a barometre of the voters pulse and how the average voter thinks is absurd. it's only a barometre of the pulse and thinking of journalists, pundits and those in the plush, corporate, beltway world. are you not aware of just how much of a hit the mainstream media has taken in recent years? the ratings for cable news networks have been in decline while independent media is on the rise.


You, me and a few million others think we're getting fucked. But 10's of millions don't, therefore my argument is not weak nor flimsy... just fact.

tens of millions don't believe so? how do you know? a fact according to whom, what, where?


Not exactly and I blame my own poor writing for not getting the point across, what I'm trying to demonstrate is rightwingers are not stupid, just nutjobs, so using the same rhetoric as disenchanted leftwingers is a tool.

yeah exactly. but that doesn't imply that we should silence our objections because some wingnuts are echoing them.

[yeahwho]

I have no statistical argument on how many people are for or against or just benign to the FISA Bill, just an estimated guess. I'll wait and use your statistics to sum it up.

[saz]

Memo to Obama: Moving to the Middle is for Losers


I looked at the Obama campaign not through the prism of my own progressive views and beliefs but through the prism of a cold-eyed campaign strategist who has no principles except winning. From that point of view, the Obama campaign is making a very serious mistake. Tacking to the center is a losing strategy. And don't let the latest head-to-head poll numbers lull you the way they lulled Hillary Clinton in December.

Running to the middle in an attempt to attract undecided swing voters didn't work for Al Gore in 2000. It didn't work for John Kerry in 2004. And it didn't work when Mark Penn (obsessed with his "microtrends" and missing the megatrend) convinced Hillary Clinton to do it in 2008.

Fixating on -- and pandering to -- this fickle crowd is all about messaging tailored to avoid offending rather than to inspire and galvanize. And isn't galvanizing the electorate to demand fundamental change the raison d'etre of the Obama campaign in the first place?

read it (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/memo-to-obama-moving-to-t_b_110026.html)

[yeahwho]

Ariana Huffington is a smart sharp woman with some very lean writing skills, I'm not as worried as her about any real or perceived move towards center at this time. It's July and the campaign is just rolling out. The one thing I feel being missed is this, I read the mainstream media as well as her blog and many others, Obama is the center, the center of every story these journalists report and opine on, Obama is serious business and he really hasn't even begun to have an open debate with McCain. McCain stories are smaller and not very prominent yet, when he finally gets his campaign tightened up and his message clear we'll see how it makes Obama appear.

I'm banking Obama will appear as a very bright, well inform articulate man. No topic is going to stump him and his "A" game will be on. If a fellow was going to waffle and manipulate his message a bit now it is probably wise to do it before the heat gets turn up.

When the rubber hits the road he'll come across as quite different than John McCain, this is for sure.

Kerry had multiple points of view and many different ideas that never gelled into a comfortable stance, I actually like his peaceful persona, he seem relaxed and not one to let attacks shake him. But in the end Bush just stayed the same... and damn if America didn't slightly tilt toward Bush and here we are today.

What I see in 2008 is a new dynamic, people are scared about their jobs, their homes and their childrens future. What Obama is doing is trying to say, "hey I care about these things just as much as you" I'm not going to abandon faith based principles, in fact I'll embrace them as your president. People want to know that change doesn't entail dismantling their beliefs, values and way of life... this message must come across despite what I want to hear or what the hardcore left wants to hear.

Adriana says, Pulling it off the shelf and replacing it with a political product geared to pleasing America's vacillating swing voters -- the ones who will be most susceptible to the fear-mongering avalanche that has already begun -- would be a fatal blunder.

Realpolitik is one thing. Realstupidpolitik is quite another.

Perhaps, but if ever there was a time to try and fail it is now, not in September. If the heat is turned on Obama enough, maybe he'll back away from his trend of embracing everything Rove and start to retreat back to the guy who treats Americans with respect and intelligence. But for now he wants let every American know he'll work for them no matter how you voted last election. It is important to be real.

polls indicate that evangelicals and other religious voters are already migrating away from their overwhelming support of the Republicans, some because of disillusionment about the war, others because of concern about global warming, still others because of uncertainty about the economy.

People are smart, Obama is smart I think we're just seeing some very good PR when he goes into churches and tells folks about his religious beliefs and shares his Christianity. Damn if do, Damn if you don't.