The Obama Illusion
El_Kabong
Posts: 4,141
nice article on where obama really stands on issues, not the face he puts on for the cameras any given day. it's kinda long but it seems like so many ppl vote based on an idea or image of what someone is about rather than what they are actually about...
http://zmagsite.zmag.org/Feb2007/street0207.html#author
http://zmagsite.zmag.org/Feb2007/street0207.html#author
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
People like Obama, there is nothing wrong with that...I am amazed to hear blacks say his heritage isn't from West Africa so that is a mark against him, wtf?
A general election determines who is President, not the left. At the end of the day, this is a country of red and blue, both have points to make, both have concerns that are valid. Obama does offer something that the Democrats haven't offered in a long time, a desire to be everyone's President.
not my president. if he says something that you like then fine, more power to you and him, but i don't agree w/ his stances. also, his actual stances kinda contradict the image he puts out as a 'progressive'
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
Well, you can divide and lose or you can unite and win...IMHO. Being YOUR president would lead me to believe that you have a very low tolerance for a difference of opinion, which is exclusive and not inclusive. To some degree you gotta stand for what you believe in, but there are reasonable limits. Just because you think the Rush Limbaugh crowd is out doesn't mean you should follow the same path but on the other extreme. Just a thought.
By SHARON SMITH
John Kerry's antiwar supporters have repeatedly warned that a military attack on Iran is imminent if George Bush is reelected. But Democrats are rattling their sabers at the same target.
On September 24, Barack Obama--the Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate from Illinois, and a shoo-in favorite--suggested "surgical missile strikes" on Iran may become necessary. "[L]aunching some missile strikes into Iran is not the optimal position for us to be in" given the ongoing war in Iraq, Obama told the Chicago Tribune.
"On the other hand, having a radical Muslim theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons is worse," he said. Obama went on to argue that military strikes on Pakistan should not be ruled out if "violent Islamic extremists" were to "take over."
A U.S. strike on Iran could well open up a new war front. When the CIA and Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) conducted a recent series of war games involving an attack on Iran, an Air Force source told Newsweek, "The war games were unsuccessful at preventing the conflict from escalating."
Why would Obama, whose staunch opposition to the Iraq war made him a hero among Democratic Party liberals, consider attacking Iran? Obama--a keynote speaker at the Democratic Party Convention--has a bright future in the Democratic Party. And the Democratic Party is a war party.
Obama opposes immediate withdrawal from Iraq. His positions are entirely consistent with the Democratic Party's platform, which explicitly puts Iran on notice: "[A] nuclear-armed Iran is an unacceptable risk to us and our allies...With John Kerry as commander-in-chief, we will never wait for a green light from abroad when our safety is at stake."
During the first presidential debate, Kerry appeared eager to stress his willingness to "go it alone" when asked his opinion about "pre-emptive war." "The president always has the right and always has had the right for pre-emptive strike," declared Kerry, adding, "That was a great doctrine throughout the Cold War."
This comment will have shocked those who recall the decades-long standoff between the U.S. and former USSR quite differently--as a period when a "first strike" by either side could easily have led to "mutual assured destruction." "Pre-emptive war" is the centerpiece of the Bush Doctrine, announced to the world after September 11.
To be sure, Kerry made no fewer than 27 allusions to allies, the United Nations, summits and treaties during the debate--and continued to insist that the invasion of Iraq was a mistake. But when asked, "Are Americans now dying in Iraq for a mistake?" Kerry's answer was "No." Kerry proceeded to outline his strategy for winning, by "beginning to not back off of Falluja and other places and send the wrong message to terrorists...You've got to show you're serious."
This strategy, right-wing New York Times columnist William Safire eagerly pointed out, "requires us to inflict and accept higher casualties." This also happens to be the strategy Bush is now pursuing in Iraq.
Kerry promises to begin replacing U.S. troops with Iraqi forces next summer, with a complete U.S. pullout by the end of his first term. This strategy, known as "Vietnamization" in 1968, was the campaign slogan of Richard Nixon--denounced by the antiwar movement, John Kerry among them, when it proved to be a colossal failure.
Kerry's argument that the invasion of Iraq was "the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time" is a sleight of hand. This is not an antiwar statement. On the contrary, it is an argument that the Iraq war was a distraction from the "real" war on terrorism--in Afghanistan, Iran, North Korea and elsewhere.
Kerry's strategy is a recipe for more war--by crushing the resistance in Iraq and taking aim at other targets in the years ahead, a strategy not very different from Bush's. As Safire gloated after the debate, ""His abandoned antiwar supporters...shut their eyes to Kerry's hard-line, right-wing, unilateral, pre-election policy epiphany." The debate is not between pro-war Republicans and antiwar Democrats, but over which war in which place at which time will better advance the global aims of U.S. imperialism.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
is he even a democrat? he's sure as hell no liberal and no fucking way in hell is he a 'progressive' as he calls himself
it seems like you like him so much b/c he's so intune w/ your own party....you vote for who you want, i'll vote for who i want and i can assure you it won't be him.
i have a low tolerance for difference of opinions b/c i don't want to vote for someone to be pesident who contradicts MY beliefs???? are you serious??
what is obama for?
he's pro nafta, cafta and all those other 'free trade' scams
pro globalization
he voted to reauthorize the patriot act
he's against social healthcare b/c of the effects it would have on ppl like kaiser permanente
says he is against the war but that we shouldn't leave until the insurgency is defeated, that we should keep some militatry there and that leaving iraq would lead america away from our global responsabilities
would go to war w/ iran
he voted against capping credit card intrest rates at 30%......
he is not antiwar, he is not a "progressive concerned w/ social and economical justice" and global peace like he tries to portray himself as.
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
What the heck does that mean??? People are intolerant if they choose to not vote for the guy you seem to like? Okaaaaay. Call me intolerant then, I'm voting for the guy that best represents my own beliefs.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
only hope is if gore runs ...
how depressing.
sometimes the truth is depressing
all great advances by this society have been caused by the population, not our leaders. so it is not that depressing.
Are you surprised? With the values of political America, anything other than an auction would be impossible. You've submitted your rights to the definition of your neighbors. Now why are you surprised when they auction those rights off?
What is depressing is that you demonize those who create those advances, and you steal those advances using the force of your leaders.
If you already know who you are voting for then it is clear there is no debate here. I think keeping an open mind at this point is wise because it isn't really that clear who the choices are and what the positions are. By the time the primaries come around, some of these guys may already be out of it.
But you can do whatever you want, I am not telling someone what to do - but I can make a point.
my party, what is that? Someone let me know because I have been wondering for awhile. I never said who I was voting for. But you stated Obama is an illusion, and I was amazed that there is so much resistence from within elements of the Democratic Party to someone who in many ways might be a good pres, and seems to me has a background of different influences, which I figured would be appealing to the Dem Party. I thought it was the red states who were supposed to have the big problem with a black president but really he isn't black enough for some elements of the Dem Party. I think that is bizzarre. But Hillary is going to get that support?
Seems like to me the Dems are going to shoot themselves in the foot, again.
I don't care what color a candidate is. I don't think many of the things Obama supports would make him a good president. That's all. You see many ways he would be a good president but you have to realize not everyone holds the same values as you do, so to them he doesn't seem like such a good idea. I'm not supporting Hillary, either. Aren't people supposed to vote for the person who most fits in with their own stances and beliefs?? Or are they just supposed to vote for the guy getting the most attention and is the most electable, no matter how we feel about his platform??
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
i'm not entirely sure what to say because i am so disappointed. i am so disappointed to see this kind of crap happening on an end of the political spectrum with which i tend to identify (moreso than the other extreme). for a million reasons, i cannot refute every point in that sad excuse for an article--one huge reason is that i don't have the time to mention everything wrong with it. i really don't know how this sad excuse of a writer read the audacity of hope because there is so much in there that directly counters what the 'author' says. i mean it's really unbelievable and sad to see such a smear that is SO misinformed. what the fuck is this, FOX news?
and what is it that people want? or rather, seeing as i probably wouldn't be considered 'progressive' by those who are so self-righteous and misleading with their information, what is it that the "real true progressives" want? you [since i'm probably banished from the group now] REALLY think someone is going to get elected in 2008 that is as radical as the collective you? is that it?
personally i'm pretty much on obama's team. who know why? I READ THE FUCKING BOOK and read other things about him--including many things with which i agree with and some that i don't. but these days i think i became more realistic and figured out that probably not soon, if ever, would a president be elected that i completely agree with. this country is not going to go radical left in 2008. and i personally think for me that obama is a good place to start. and i think he can win.
but most of all, i hate to see a "side" be so divisive. since when did that become the new, "good" strategy? who thought that was a good idea? and who thought it would be good to stoop to the extreme right's tactics?
whatever. if you don't like obama, don't vote for him. but know what you're talking about--the collective you--before you smear him. although i guess if people knew what they were talking about, there wouldn't be a smear would there?
cross the river to the eastside
I think it's unfair to play the race card. I think it would be worse to vote for Obama, just because he is black. The simple truth is that Kabong & Abook don't agree with his past political stances, so Obama is not for them. I think it is a sad that we have to settle with someone simply because they are 'electable'. Vote with your heart. For the record, what little I knew about Obama, I liked, but I have to say the article Kabong posted about him suprised me.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Yes, and the primaries is how this will get settled. But being electable in the general election is the key as well and being an outsider to parties I see that this thread started out simply stating that Obama isn't a good choice for a liberal. First, I don't even think that is true from what I can tell, but even if he isn't liberal enough for the left left, he might still be the choice that wins the general election whereas others won't. And essentially if the left left gets its way, then a whole lot of other people won't get a chance to support someone they would support in the general election.
I am being selfish maybe, but I would prefer to see Obama in the general election versus probably Rudy, then I feel like there could be two choices instead of one for me. And real debate would take place. But, I am more in the middle than hard left or right. It is all relative to who is judging you I guess.
Actually, I would prefer there were no parties at all, then this damn thing could be settled without interference, and a third party independent would have a chance.
There is no Obama Illusion, but apparently his appeal accross the country is something that frightens some. Maybe his lack of experience is part of that, or maybe it is that he has not paid dues. I say good for him if the latter is the case.
Yeah, what a bummer of a middle name, but that's not his fault. I kind of like the name Barack myself.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
I am the one who brought race into this discussion, so my bad. I just watched that conference led by Tavis Smalley and also listened to a discussion on NPR last week regarding Obama and blacks. And I was surprised that Baracks lack of origin in West Africa actually made a difference. Since his father is from Kenya, that wasn't good enough because that isn't West Africa, origin of the slaves. I was also surprised by the comments on the Tavis Smiley conference where they seemed to sort of hold him in disregard since he wasn't of the civil rights movement in the sixties. Since he hasn't been running around for the last 40 years like Jesse and Sharpton, or Cornell West, as a black activist he wasn't good enough for them.
hey now ... u know "collective we" love ya!! ...
we all want the same thing in this world - some people choose a different route to get there vs others ... that's all ...
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
were those stances of his i posted wrong? if not then i stand by what i say and think. i do not want to go to war w/ iran, i don't think we should permanently stay in iraq, i think nafta and all those free trade things are bad, i think the patriot act is bad, i think capping credit card intrest rates at just 30% is more than generous...he looks like a hipper joe leiberman kinda
for me, what it boils down to is he votes and acts in a way that opposes my views and beliefs, why is that not a good enough reason? why do ppl say stupid shit like 'are you sure it's not cos he's black?' or that i'm not being tolerant enough to vote for who you or someoene else wants me to vote for? someone whose actions i do not want to stand behind?
if you like him fine, if you like those views, fine. just don't expect that to make me support him as well.
we all know too well that a candidate can swear these are his views...wasn't george ever so concerned about all the ppl w/o healthcare in 2000? wasn't he saying the military is not to be used for nation building? it seems like we're always scrathcin our heads and saying 'but i thought you said....' no matter who it is and i am tired of it. this is how his actions seem to me. he's antiwar but he wants to maintain permanent military bases in iraq so syria and iran know we are serious, only have a withdrawl after the insurgency is defeated, would go to war w/ iran? he's concerned about social and economic justice but supports the systems doing some of hte most damage and pretty much look out for the corporations before the ppl??
i don't have the definition of progressive coined, but to me it wouldn't be someone so willing to go to war and whos record seems to show pushes the usual corporate agenda...but hey, he's charasmatic, has a nice smile and is on your team, so go w/ it
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
oh well that is sweet thank you.
anyway, i understand people have different routes and that's fabulous. but what i don't understand is misleading information used in a smear campaign. and that "collective you" is me casting a very wide net-- i'm speaking to other things in the media too. i should have clarified that.
i have to work. but i should say quickly--one thing i liked about the book is that he did discuss universal health care especially in the way that it would be a good way to help (not only) blacks. but that universal initiatives would be more helpful to blacks than just race-specific measures. this was part of a whole chapter about race and how health care and health is quite different when that is a factor. i hate to start talking about this because i can't adequately explain in my limited time . . .
cross the river to the eastside
I agree with you...I explain this phenom as having gotten so used to being negative and attacking as the winning strategy in politics, regardless of fact, that it has become very easy to then turn on anyone and everyone that doesn't completely agree with you.
BTW, this is one of the common perceptions that conservatives hold of liberals, that they get so wrapped up in what they are against that they never quite figure out or define what they are for.
And I agree that all of 'that' is petty. It is cheap shot to play the race card in any instance. I'm the first one to admit that I still have a lot to learn about Obama and other potential candidates and I won't be considering any petty arguments such as the one you stated above.
I also agree that one should focus on what they WANT instead of wasting time focusing on what they don't want. That only draws more of what you don't want.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
I know what I want. I want peace and by that I don't just mean saying it as something that sounds nice but view it as some unreachable goal. I think my best chance of living in a world with peace is to vote for someone who supports peaceful solutions over military ones. I want fair trade policies not free trade ones. I think the best way to reach that goal is to support a candidate who supports fair trade. I want UHC. I don't think Obama is the answer to many of the changes I'd like to see in this country so he will not be getting my support. It has nothing to do with wanting to be against everything....I'd say the opposite is true. And the same thing can be applied to the 'electable candidate crowd'. It seems people are so against letting a Republican get in again that they'll compromise their own morals and vote for the front runner even if he's not about the change they really want in this country.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde