The Obama Illusion

El_Kabong

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

WindNoSail

El_Kabong wrote:

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

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.

El_Kabong

WindNoSail wrote:

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'

WindNoSail

El_Kabong wrote:

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'

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.

Abookamongstthemany

Barak O-Bomb-a?
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.

El_Kabong

WindNoSail wrote:

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.

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.

Abookamongstthemany

WindNoSail wrote:

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.

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.

gue_barium

I'm a Socialist.

polaris

a rose is a rose is a rose ...

only hope is if gore runs ...

NOCODE#1

El_Kabong wrote:

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'

is that a nice way to get around his race?

my2hands

IMO we have never had a truly great leader, and never will. we dont have a democracy, we have an auction. unfortunately.

jlew24asu

my2hands wrote:

IMO we have never had a truly great leader, and never will. we dont have a democracy, we have an auction. unfortunately.

how depressing.

cornnifer

Ladies and gentleman, the debates havn't even really started. Once they do, Obama will own the field.

my2hands

jlew24asu wrote:

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.

farfromglorified

my2hands wrote:

IMO we have never had a truly great leader, and never will. we dont have a democracy, we have an auction. unfortunately.

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?

farfromglorified

my2hands wrote:

all great advances by this society have been caused by the population, not our leaders. so it is not that depressing.

What is depressing is that you demonize those who create those advances, and you steal those advances using the force of your leaders.

WindNoSail

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

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.

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.

El_Kabong wrote:

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??

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.

Abookamongstthemany

WindNoSail wrote:

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??

VictoryGin

El_Kabong wrote:

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

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?

baraka

WindNoSail wrote:

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 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.

WindNoSail

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

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??

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.