Boy, you sure seem to live in a jaded world of exaggerated extremes.
Coming from you that is actually hilarious. You should have saved that little jab for use in something resembling relevance. Ah the kooky Utopia Nadernuts live in !
Coming from you that is actually hilarious. You should have saved that little jab for use in something resembling relevance. Ah the kooky Utopia Nadernuts live in !
“Every daring attempt to make a great change in existing conditions, every lofty vision of new possibilities for the human race, has been labeled Utopian."
~Emma Goldman
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
When other candidates have done this, it's been called flip-flopping.
This election round it seems that even the mainstream media (I was watching NBC nightly news this week) is calling it doing-what-it-takes-to-win. :cool:
I'm disturbed that I keep equating it with what different contestants do on Survivor! :rolleyes:
This isn't a fucking game. Candidates need to be up front and honest with where they stand and how they will vote on the issues, so when we make our informed voting decision, it is done so with accurate information.
Walking can be a real trip
***********************
"We've laid the groundwork. It's like planting the seeds. And next year, it's spring." - Nader
***********************
Prepare for tending to your garden, America.
So this guy is the only qualified person with years of experience? I don't trust this guys judgment, plain and simple.
I'm sure if it were one of McCain's advisors you'd all be singing a different tune. But no matter who Obama surrounds himself with, you'll quickly rationalize it away.
Thats not totally true as I also feel that Condi Rice was qualified for the position of Secretary of State even if I disagree with her.
In this world someone can be qualified for a job even if you don't agree with them. And you keep acting like this guy is setting Obama's agenda and he clearly is not. Obama says hes not. Furman says hes not.
And of course he's not the only qualified person but he still is extremely qualified. You feel that I stick up for Obama to much and that is probably true but its mostly because I feel the majority of you attacks on the man is unfounded and this whole Obama=McCain talk is pure rubbish to me.
McCain is Bush 2.0 which is sad because I used to have a lot of respect for the man. In fact he used to be the only GOP guy I respected. Obama is liberal on war on drugs, abortion, welfare, taxes, pretty much in every category that defines a liberal.
He even was against the Iraq War from day one but yet you view him as another Hawk.
So that is why I defend him. Because I don't buy that if he doesn't equal Nader or Kucinich then he must equal McCain and Bush!
To me you are missing some middle ground for people like me that are not totally left wing like Nader and Kucinich but would never support a gun toting war mongering abortion banning Republican.
So do I agree with everything he does? No. But I will never agree with any candidate 100% because I have my own ideals and beliefs that are unique to me and no candidate will ever think just like me. But I have to say that Obama comes the closest.
10/31/2000 (****)
6/7/2003 (***1/2)
7/9/2006 (****1/2)
7/13/2006 (**** )
4/10/2008 EV Solo (****1/2)
6/25/2008 MSG II (*****)
10/1/2009 LA II (****)
10/6/2009 LA III (***** Cornell!!!)
Thats not totally true as I also feel that Condi Rice was qualified for the position of Secretary of State even if I disagree with her.
In this world someone can be qualified for a job even if you don't agree with them. And you keep acting like this guy is setting Obama's agenda and he clearly is not. Obama says hes not. Furman says hes not.
And of course he's not the only qualified person but he still is extremely qualified. You feel that I stick up for Obama to much and that is probably true but its mostly because I feel the majority of you attacks on the man is unfounded and this whole Obama=McCain talk is pure rubbish to me.
McCain is Bush 2.0 which is sad because I used to have a lot of respect for the man. In fact he used to be the only GOP guy I respected. Obama is liberal on war on drugs, abortion, welfare, taxes, pretty much in every category that defines a liberal.
He even was against the Iraq War from day one but yet you view him as another Hawk.
So that is why I defend him. Because I don't buy that if he doesn't equal Nader or Kucinich then he must equal McCain and Bush!
To me you are missing some middle ground for people like me that are not totally left wing like Nader and Kucinich but would never support a gun toting war mongering abortion banning Republican.
So do I agree with everything he does? No. But I will never agree with any candidate 100% because I have my own ideals and beliefs that are unique to me and no candidate will ever think just like me. But I have to say that Obama comes the closest.
why do you think she was qualified
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
Years of service. Knowledge of the current president's policies. Highly eduacated.
Again Bush won the election so he can pick his cabinent. Its how it works. I don't agree with him or her that's why I voted for Gore and Kerry.
If Obama wins he should pick who he wants on the cabinent and the same goes for McCain.
It's not that hard to understand people.
10/31/2000 (****)
6/7/2003 (***1/2)
7/9/2006 (****1/2)
7/13/2006 (**** )
4/10/2008 EV Solo (****1/2)
6/25/2008 MSG II (*****)
10/1/2009 LA II (****)
10/6/2009 LA III (***** Cornell!!!)
Thats not totally true as I also feel that Condi Rice was qualified for the position of Secretary of State even if I disagree with her.
In this world someone can be qualified for a job even if you don't agree with them. And you keep acting like this guy is setting Obama's agenda and he clearly is not. Obama says hes not. Furman says hes not.
And of course he's not the only qualified person but he still is extremely qualified. You feel that I stick up for Obama to much and that is probably true but its mostly because I feel the majority of you attacks on the man is unfounded and this whole Obama=McCain talk is pure rubbish to me.
McCain is Bush 2.0 which is sad because I used to have a lot of respect for the man. In fact he used to be the only GOP guy I respected. Obama is liberal on war on drugs, abortion, welfare, taxes, pretty much in every category that defines a liberal.
He even was against the Iraq War from day one but yet you view him as another Hawk.
So that is why I defend him. Because I don't buy that if he doesn't equal Nader or Kucinich then he must equal McCain and Bush!
To me you are missing some middle ground for people like me that are not totally left wing like Nader and Kucinich but would never support a gun toting war mongering abortion banning Republican.
So do I agree with everything he does? No. But I will never agree with any candidate 100% because I have my own ideals and beliefs that are unique to me and no candidate will ever think just like me. But I have to say that Obama comes the closest.
What does he do then? He's there to advise Obama. I wouldn't want advice from someone with his kind of history and I wouldn't want the president to take these kind ideas into consideration. Your past accomplishments and goals should be a big part of qualifying for a job.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
So then the vote is meaningless? And the people that voted against confirming her were just wrong and shouldn't have been able to make that vote?
No the people voting against her can vote how they want. I would have voted her in as she was just doing her job serving under Bush. No matter who was secretary of state they would have been involved in the Iraq war as that was Bush/Cheney's baby.
10/31/2000 (****)
6/7/2003 (***1/2)
7/9/2006 (****1/2)
7/13/2006 (**** )
4/10/2008 EV Solo (****1/2)
6/25/2008 MSG II (*****)
10/1/2009 LA II (****)
10/6/2009 LA III (***** Cornell!!!)
Years of service. Knowledge of the current president's policies. Highly eduacated.
Again Bush won the election so he can pick his cabinent. Its how it works. I don't agree with him or her that's why I voted for Gore and Kerry.
If Obama wins he should pick who he wants on the cabinent and the same goes for McCain.
It's not that hard to understand people.
so if mccain wins and picks someone like kissinger it'd be ok?
i don't see how 'years of service' and 'knowledge of his policies' qualifies you as secretary of state, especially when she repeatedly 'couldn't remember' the head of the CIA calling and sending memos saying they are using false information.
let's say at a hospital there's a doctor who repeatedly forgets how to do routine procedures, should the hospital give them a promotion and raise b/c they've worked there for years and know the hospital's policies?
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
We're beginning to understand why Barack Obama keeps protesting so vigorously against the prospect of "George Bush's third term." Maybe he's worried that someone will notice that he's the candidate who's running for it.
Most Presidential candidates adapt their message after they win their party nomination, but Mr. Obama isn't merely "running to the center." He's fleeing from many of his primary positions so markedly and so rapidly that he's embracing a sizable chunk of President Bush's policy. Who would have thought that a Democrat would rehabilitate the much-maligned Bush agenda?
[Bush's Third Term]
Getty Images
Take the surveillance of foreign terrorists. Last October, while running with the Democratic pack, the Illinois Senator vowed to "support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies" that assisted in such eavesdropping after 9/11. As recently as February, still running as the liberal favorite against Hillary Clinton, he was one of 29 Democrats who voted against allowing a bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee reform of surveillance rules even to come to the floor.
Two weeks ago, however, the House passed a bill that is essentially the same as that Senate version, and Mr. Obama now says he supports it. Apparently legal immunity for the telcos is vital for U.S. national security, just as Mr. Bush has claimed. Apparently, too, the legislation isn't an attempt by Dick Cheney to gut the Constitution. Perhaps it is dawning on Mr. Obama that, if he does become President, he'll be responsible for preventing any new terrorist attack. So now he's happy to throw the New York Times under the bus.
Next up for Mr. Obama's political blessing will be Mr. Bush's Iraq policy. Only weeks ago, the Democrat was calling for an immediate and rapid U.S. withdrawal. When General David Petraeus first testified about the surge in September 2007, Mr. Obama was dismissive and skeptical. But with the surge having worked wonders in Iraq, this week Mr. Obama went out of his way to defend General Petraeus against MoveOn.org's attacks in 2007 that he was "General Betray Us." Perhaps he had a late epiphany.
Look for Mr. Obama to use his forthcoming visit to Iraq as an excuse to drop those withdrawal plans faster than he can say Jeremiah Wright "was not the person that I met 20 years ago." The Senator will learn – as John McCain has been saying – that withdrawal would squander the gains from the surge, set back Iraqi political progress, and weaken America's strategic position against Iran. Our guess is that he'll spin this switcheroo as some kind of conditional commitment, saying he'll stay in Iraq as long as Iraqis are making progress on political reconciliation, and so on. As things improve in Iraq, this would be Mr. Bush's policy too.
Mr. Obama has also made ostentatious leaps toward Mr. Bush on domestic issues. While he once bid for labor support by pledging a unilateral rewrite of Nafta, the Democrat now says he favors free trade as long as it works for "everybody." His economic aide, Austan Goolsbee, has been liberated from the five-month purdah he endured for telling Canadians that Mr. Obama's protectionism was merely campaign rhetoric. Now that Mr. Obama is in a general election, he can't scare the business community too much.
Back in the day, the first-term Senator also voted against the Supreme Court nominations of John Roberts and Samuel Alito. But last week he agreed with their majority opinion in the Heller gun rights case, and with their dissent against the liberal majority's ruling to ban the death penalty for rape. Mr. Obama seems to appreciate that getting pegged as a cultural lefty is deadly for national Democrats – at least until November.
This week the great Democratic hope even endorsed spending more money on faith-based charities. Apparently, this core plank of Mr. Bush's "compassionate conservatism" is not the assault on church-state separation that the ACLU and liberals have long claimed. And yesterday, Mr. Obama's campaign unveiled an ad asserting his support for welfare reform that "slashed the rolls by 80 percent." Never mind that Mr. Obama has declared multiple times that he opposed the landmark 1996 welfare reform.
* * *
All of which prompts a couple of thoughts. The first is that Mr. Obama doesn't seem to think American political sentiment has moved as far left as most of the media claim. Another is that the next President, whether Democrat or Republican, is going to embrace much of Mr. Bush's foreign and antiterror policy whether he admits it or not. Think Eisenhower endorsing Truman's Cold War architecture.
Most important is the matter of Mr. Obama's political character – and how honest he is being about what he truly believes. His voting record in the Senate and in Illinois, as well as his primary positions, would make him the most liberal Presidential candidate since George McGovern in 1972. But he clearly doesn't want voters to believe that in November. He's still the Obama Americans don't know.
Walking can be a real trip
***********************
"We've laid the groundwork. It's like planting the seeds. And next year, it's spring." - Nader
***********************
Prepare for tending to your garden, America.
Published on Monday, July 7, 2008 by The Huffington Post
The Mind and the Obama Magic
by George Lakoff
Barack Obama should not be moving toward right-wing views on issues — even with nuanced escape clauses. Arianna Huffington, Paul Krugman and the NY Times Editorial Page all agree, for various reasons. I agree as well, for many of the same reasons, as well as important reasons that go beyond even excellent political commentary. My reasons have to do with results in the cognitive and brain sciences, as discussed in my recent book, The Political Mind: Why You Can’t Understand 21st Century Politics with an 18th Century Brain.
But before I get into the details, it is important to get a sense of why Obama might be “moving to the Right.” There are at least two possibilities. The first is for political expediency. The second is to reassure voters that he is a responsible leader, not a crazy radical. Let’s start with the first possibility — expediency, the one assumed by most observers.
The Political Expediency Argument
The usual political wisdom is (1) voters vote on the basis of positions on issues, (2) there is a left-to-right spectrum of voters defined by positions on issues, (3) most voters are in the “center.” Polls are constructed to appear consistent with this tripartite hypothesis. The Dick Morris strategy, based on this hypothesis, says: if a Democrat moves the Right, he will get more votes because he will “take away” the other side’s issues. If Obama and his advisors believe this, then the more they more to the Right, the bigger their win should be. But all three hypotheses are false, and so is the conclusion based on it.
First, voters mostly vote not on the details of positions on issues, but on five aspects of what might be called “character,” as Richard Wirthlin discovered in the 1980 Reagan campaign. (pdf) They are Values (What are the ethical principles that form the basis of your politics?); Authenticity (Do you say what you believe?); Communication (Do you connect with voters and inspire them?); Judgment; Trust; and Identity (If you share voters’ values, connect with them, tell them the truth effectively while inspiring trust, then they will identify with you — and they will voter for you. Positions on issues matter when they come to stand symbolically for values. Reagan and George W. Bush understood this. Carter, Mondale, Gore, and Kerry did not. And in the primaries. Hillary Clinton did not get it (she focused on policy, while Obama and McCain focused more on character, on who he was).
Values, authenticity, communication, judgment, and trust are not irrational reasons for voting for a president, even over positions on specific issues. The reason is that situations change, and what you rationally wind up depending on are just those virtues.
Obama introduced himself to the primary voters not as a policy wonk, but as a person of character, who announced his values, said what he believed (no pussyfooting), communicated beautifully and powerfully, and gave examples of his good judgment–he was someone you could trust and identify with. That was a major part of the Obama magic. If Obama even appears to adopt Right-wing views for the sake of getting more votes, he will appear to be giving up on his values, renouncing his authenticity and believability, clouding his judgment, and raising questions about whether he can be trusted. The Obama magic will be in danger of fading.
Let us now turn to the second reason. There are two major modes of thought in American politics — conservative and progressive, what I’ve called “strict” and “nurturant.” We all grow up with brains exposed to both and capable of using both, but usually in different areas of life. Some people are conservative on foreign policy and progressive on domestic policy, or conservative on economic issues and progressive on social issues–or the reverse. There is no left-to-right linear spectrum; all kinds of combinations occur. I’ve called such folks “biconceptuals.” Brainwise, they show a common situation called “mutual inhibition,” where two modes of thought are possible but the activation of one inhibits the other. The more you activate a conservative mode of thought, the more you inhibit the progressive mode of thought — and the more likely it is that the conservative mode of thought will spread to other issues.
Interestingly, many people who call themselves “conservatives” actually think like progressives on a range of issue areas. For example, many “conservatives” love the land as much as any environmentalist; want to live in communities where people care about each other, that is, have social not just individual responsibility; live progressive business principles of honesty, care for their employees, and care for the public; and have progressive religious values: helping the poor, caring for the sick, being good stewards of the God’s creation, turning the other cheek. One view of “bipartisanship” for progressives is finding self-described conservatives and independents who have such progressive values and working with them on that basis. That’s what Obama did when he went to Rick Warren’s megachurch and it is his strategy in Project Joshua. Note that this is the opposite of the form of bipartisanship that involves really adopting right-wing values, or even appearing to. What this bipartisan strategy does, from the brain’s viewpoint, is to activate the progressive mode of thought in the brains of conservatives, and thus tends to inhibit conservative thought.
But the form of bipartisanship that involves adopting, or appearing to adopt, right-wing views has the opposite effect. It strengthens conservative thought in the brains on those biconceptuals and weakens progressive thought. In short, it actually helps conservatives. Rather than “taking arguments away from them” it strengthens their basic values and hence all their arguments. It give conservatives more reason, not less, for voting for conservatives.
If Obama adopts, or appears to adopt, right-wing positions, he may still win, since McCain is such a weak candidate. But it will hurt Democrats running for office all up and down the ticket, since it will strengthen general conservative positions on all issues and hence work in the favor of conservative candidates.
As has often been said, if you are a conservative, why vote for the progressive spouting conservative views when you can vote for a real conservative?
In short, if Obama adopts, or appears to adopt, right-wing views, he will not only hurt himself, but also hurt other Democrats.
The Responsibility Position
Suppose that Obama’s motivation is not political expediency, but rather an attempt to counter both right-wing and centrist stereotypes of progressives as being irresponsible.
Adopting, or appearing to adopt, right-wing positions is not going to work, and will only hurt, for reasons given above. What is the alternative?
In The Audacity of Hope, Obama portrays what I would call progressive ideals as simply American ideals, and he continued that account throughout the primary campaign. I think it is a correct account. And I think it is the key to uniting the country without adopting right-wing views. From this perspective, responsibility and the strength and judgment to act responsibly works with empathy (caring about other people) to define the basic American ideals: freedom, fairness, equality, opportunity, and so on. One can speak from this perspective of “full responsibility” both social and individual as central to the American vision, and they say what it means to be both responsible and committed to American ideals in each issue area. Moving to right-wing views, and abandoning American ideals, is never necessary to win.
A Final Word on Nuanced Escape Clauses
When Obama ran for Senator in Illinois he had to at least appear to support Illinois industries — coal, ethanol, and nuclear energy. He has used nuanced escape clauses, such as if it turns out to be economically feasible, while aware that sequestered coal, corn ethanol, and nuclear could not be economically feasible. Is this good politics? It may have been for a new senator, but it is not for a president. The reason again is that doing so activates a conservative mode of thought and inhibits a progressive mode of thought, making the move to real alternative energy that much harder.
Positions like this depend on a deep mistake about policy. There are two aspects to policy: cognitive and material. Material policy is about the nuts and bolts, how things are to work in the world. Cognitive policy is about what the public has to have in its brain/mind in order to fully support the right material policies. Coal, nuclear energy, and ethanol are policy disasters, and even giving them phony support with nuanced escape clauses hurts the possibility of real energy reform, but it activates, and hence strengthens, the conservative modes of thought that lie behind those proposals.
Can You Avoid Attacks?
No. No matter how many right-wing views you move toward, you will be viciously attacked as too liberal, as influenced by radicals, as inexperienced, as unpatriotic, as all words and no content. Stick to your core values. Be yourself. Voters will respect you.
Why Understanding the Political Mind Matters
Politics looks different from the perspective of the cognitive and brain sciences. That is why I have written The Political Mind. Your arguments change when you start with how the brain and mind really work.
From the brain’s perspective, the pragmatic arguments and moral arguments converge: Don’t adopt right-wing positions for the sake of political expediency (that will backfire) or to demonstrate responsibility (that too will backfire). The best way to be expedient is to be authentic, stick to your core values, show and discuss responsibility, and thus garner trust. That is how to lead our nation, and to do so responsibly and toward fulfillment of its ideals.
George Lakoff is the author of The Political Mind: Why You Can’t Understand 20th Century American Politics with an 18th Century Brain. He is Goldman Distinguished Professor of Cognitive Science and Linguistics at the University of California at Berkeley.
Walking can be a real trip
***********************
"We've laid the groundwork. It's like planting the seeds. And next year, it's spring." - Nader
***********************
Prepare for tending to your garden, America.
Published on Saturday, June 28, 2008 by CommonDreams.org
Primary Over, Hillary Won
by Dave Lindorff
Now that the primary season is over, we can see that the clear winner was Hillary Clinton.
Oh, I know. Barack Obama got the most votes and the most delegates, and he’ll be the Democratic presidential nominee this August, but increasingly, it’s becoming obvious that he’s just a pretty wrapper. Sneak a peak inside the wrapper and you’ll find Hillary Clinton inside.
Look at the facts.
No sooner did the last votes get counted in Montana, than Obama hied himself off to Washington to show his fealty to the America Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), where he promised to do whatever Israel wanted. You would have thought he was Bush or Hillary, so fulsome was his promise to unquestioningly back the worst policies and actions of Israel’s criminally insane right-wing government. Claim all of Jerusalem for the Jewish state? Fine by him. Starve and terrorize a million people in Gaza? No problemo. Attack Iran to prevent a merely suspected nuclear program from eventually producing a possible bomb? Okay. Negotiate with Hamas? Never.
Then there was the FISA and Fourth Amendment-violating campaign of spying by the National Security Agency. Some members of Congress and the courts have been trying for years to find out what Bush and Cheney have really been up to with this program, but they¹ve been stymied by the administration’s insistence that the phone companies, who enabled most of the spying, are immune from prosecution and don’t have to surrender records of, or talk about what they actually did. Congress, with the help of a spineless Democratic majority in both houses, came up in June with a bill that endorses the spying and gives retroactive immunity to the phone companies. 15 Senators - all Democrats - opposed that wretched sell-out of the Constitution and the American people. Sen. Obama supported it, just like Clinton.
When the Supreme Court, in a rare exception to a rash of reactionary rulings in the past few weeks, overturned a state law authorizing the death penalty for the rape of a child, Obama stood up for the death penalty, saying that he thought states should have the right to kill anyone who would sexually abuse a child. I guess he must think the states should be able to kill people convicted of killing someone too, since murder has to be at least as nasty as child rape. Another Clinton position. Never mind that most of the people who get the death penalty are persons of color, and that almost all the 4000 people on America¹s bulging death rows are either poor, desperately poor, retarded or simply insane. Never mind that rape is one of the most likely crimes to lead to wrongful convictions.
Barack was out there dissing black dads, too, charging them, as a class, with abandonment of their children, even though studies show that black fathers are no less likely to abandon their kids than are white dads. Okay, that’s not really a Hillary position. It’s more akin to Bill Clinton’s attacks on prominent blacks like Jesse Jackson or Sister Soulja during his campaigns for higher office.
It¹s getting harder and harder to see any light between Obama’s and Hillary’s positions on the Iraq War too, what with Obama backing away from his earlier campaign pledge to end the war within 16 months of taking office and saying instead that he would “listen to the generals” and that withdrawal would depend upon the situation on the ground.
Finally, Obama, after showing a remarkable ability to inspire tons of small donations and support from individuals, and to fund a huge national campaign without much in the way of corporate support, is greedily slurping from Hillary’s cesspool of corporate backers, now that she’s out of the way. Soon, he’ll be wallowing in tainted cash from Wall Street commercial and investment banks and hedge funds, telecom companies, defense contractors, Big Pharma companies, the HMO industry, and the entertainment industry. He’ll be owned like just about every other politician in Washington.
The transmogrification of an upstart people’s candidate for ‘change’ into just another front man for the corporatocracy will be complete.
Hillary will have won, but in the corporal form of Barack Obama.
The joke, of course, is that this evocation by Obama of his inner Clinton is not going to win him many votes, and may in fact lose him far more than he gains. Being Clinton, after all, didn’t win it for Hillary Clinton. It was Obama¹s differences from Clinton that won him the primary votes.
Clintonian positions didn’t really win the presidency for Bill Clinton either. It was Ross Perot who won the 1992 election for Clinton, by stealing enough votes from George Bush Sr. to let Clinton win with a mere plurality of the votes cast. There won’t be any Ross Perot this year, though, so Obama can’t hope to squeak by with a minority of the votes cast the way Bill did. In fact there will be at least two candidates - a Green Party one and Ralph Nader - who will be picking off some of the people Obama’s imitation of Clinton will turn off sufficiently for them to abandon him. There will also be a Libertarian candidate running, whose outspoken opposition to the war will attract disillusioned erstwhile Obama backers. Many more voters may just stay home in disgust. (It was also Al Gore’s decision to run a Clintonesque campaign or triangulation and pursuit of those elusive “mainstream” voters that made his run against Bush in 2000 close enough for the election to be stolen.)
Meanwhile, those Hillary primary voters Obama seems intent on pursuing at the expense of the progressive vote‹the pro-Israel hawks in New York and Florida, the “hard-working whites” of the West Virginia hollers, the Pennsylvania hills and the flatlands of Ohio and Indiana aren’t going to vote for him just because he adopts Hillary’s positions. They¹ll want the real deal, not just a front man posing as a front woman, so they’ll go for John McCain (just as they would have in November had Hillary won the nomination).
You gotta ask why a guy who had it all going for him is suddenly making such incredibly bad strategic decisions.
It has to be either that he’s brought on board too many Clinton backers, or that his own strategists have lost confidence in their own game plan. In his bid for Democratic Party “unity” Obama has sold whatever soul he once had.
He has met the enemy, and he has become her.
Dave Lindorff’s most recent book is “The Case for Impeachment” (St. Martin’s Press, 2006). His work is available at http://www.thiscantbehappening.net.
Walking can be a real trip
***********************
"We've laid the groundwork. It's like planting the seeds. And next year, it's spring." - Nader
***********************
Prepare for tending to your garden, America.
Comments
Coming from you that is actually hilarious. You should have saved that little jab for use in something resembling relevance. Ah the kooky Utopia Nadernuts live in !
New movie out this weekend getting rave reviews---->
http://www.thepeoplescube.com/images/Nader_SunsetBoulevard_500.gif
“Every daring attempt to make a great change in existing conditions, every lofty vision of new possibilities for the human race, has been labeled Utopian."
~Emma Goldman
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
This election round it seems that even the mainstream media (I was watching NBC nightly news this week) is calling it doing-what-it-takes-to-win. :cool:
I'm disturbed that I keep equating it with what different contestants do on Survivor!
This isn't a fucking game. Candidates need to be up front and honest with where they stand and how they will vote on the issues, so when we make our informed voting decision, it is done so with accurate information.
***********************
"We've laid the groundwork. It's like planting the seeds. And next year, it's spring." - Nader
***********************
Prepare for tending to your garden, America.
Thats not totally true as I also feel that Condi Rice was qualified for the position of Secretary of State even if I disagree with her.
In this world someone can be qualified for a job even if you don't agree with them. And you keep acting like this guy is setting Obama's agenda and he clearly is not. Obama says hes not. Furman says hes not.
And of course he's not the only qualified person but he still is extremely qualified. You feel that I stick up for Obama to much and that is probably true but its mostly because I feel the majority of you attacks on the man is unfounded and this whole Obama=McCain talk is pure rubbish to me.
McCain is Bush 2.0 which is sad because I used to have a lot of respect for the man. In fact he used to be the only GOP guy I respected. Obama is liberal on war on drugs, abortion, welfare, taxes, pretty much in every category that defines a liberal.
He even was against the Iraq War from day one but yet you view him as another Hawk.
So that is why I defend him. Because I don't buy that if he doesn't equal Nader or Kucinich then he must equal McCain and Bush!
To me you are missing some middle ground for people like me that are not totally left wing like Nader and Kucinich but would never support a gun toting war mongering abortion banning Republican.
So do I agree with everything he does? No. But I will never agree with any candidate 100% because I have my own ideals and beliefs that are unique to me and no candidate will ever think just like me. But I have to say that Obama comes the closest.
6/7/2003 (***1/2)
7/9/2006 (****1/2)
7/13/2006 (**** )
4/10/2008 EV Solo (****1/2)
6/25/2008 MSG II (*****)
10/1/2009 LA II (****)
10/6/2009 LA III (***** Cornell!!!)
why do you think she was qualified
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
Years of service. Knowledge of the current president's policies. Highly eduacated.
Again Bush won the election so he can pick his cabinent. Its how it works. I don't agree with him or her that's why I voted for Gore and Kerry.
If Obama wins he should pick who he wants on the cabinent and the same goes for McCain.
It's not that hard to understand people.
6/7/2003 (***1/2)
7/9/2006 (****1/2)
7/13/2006 (**** )
4/10/2008 EV Solo (****1/2)
6/25/2008 MSG II (*****)
10/1/2009 LA II (****)
10/6/2009 LA III (***** Cornell!!!)
So then the vote is meaningless? And the people that voted against confirming her were just wrong and shouldn't have been able to make that vote?
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
What does he do then? He's there to advise Obama. I wouldn't want advice from someone with his kind of history and I wouldn't want the president to take these kind ideas into consideration. Your past accomplishments and goals should be a big part of qualifying for a job.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
No the people voting against her can vote how they want. I would have voted her in as she was just doing her job serving under Bush. No matter who was secretary of state they would have been involved in the Iraq war as that was Bush/Cheney's baby.
6/7/2003 (***1/2)
7/9/2006 (****1/2)
7/13/2006 (**** )
4/10/2008 EV Solo (****1/2)
6/25/2008 MSG II (*****)
10/1/2009 LA II (****)
10/6/2009 LA III (***** Cornell!!!)
so if mccain wins and picks someone like kissinger it'd be ok?
i don't see how 'years of service' and 'knowledge of his policies' qualifies you as secretary of state, especially when she repeatedly 'couldn't remember' the head of the CIA calling and sending memos saying they are using false information.
let's say at a hospital there's a doctor who repeatedly forgets how to do routine procedures, should the hospital give them a promotion and raise b/c they've worked there for years and know the hospital's policies?
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
July 2, 2008; Page A12
From:http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121495450490321133.html?mod=opinion_main_review_and_outlooks
We're beginning to understand why Barack Obama keeps protesting so vigorously against the prospect of "George Bush's third term." Maybe he's worried that someone will notice that he's the candidate who's running for it.
Most Presidential candidates adapt their message after they win their party nomination, but Mr. Obama isn't merely "running to the center." He's fleeing from many of his primary positions so markedly and so rapidly that he's embracing a sizable chunk of President Bush's policy. Who would have thought that a Democrat would rehabilitate the much-maligned Bush agenda?
[Bush's Third Term]
Getty Images
Take the surveillance of foreign terrorists. Last October, while running with the Democratic pack, the Illinois Senator vowed to "support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies" that assisted in such eavesdropping after 9/11. As recently as February, still running as the liberal favorite against Hillary Clinton, he was one of 29 Democrats who voted against allowing a bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee reform of surveillance rules even to come to the floor.
Two weeks ago, however, the House passed a bill that is essentially the same as that Senate version, and Mr. Obama now says he supports it. Apparently legal immunity for the telcos is vital for U.S. national security, just as Mr. Bush has claimed. Apparently, too, the legislation isn't an attempt by Dick Cheney to gut the Constitution. Perhaps it is dawning on Mr. Obama that, if he does become President, he'll be responsible for preventing any new terrorist attack. So now he's happy to throw the New York Times under the bus.
Next up for Mr. Obama's political blessing will be Mr. Bush's Iraq policy. Only weeks ago, the Democrat was calling for an immediate and rapid U.S. withdrawal. When General David Petraeus first testified about the surge in September 2007, Mr. Obama was dismissive and skeptical. But with the surge having worked wonders in Iraq, this week Mr. Obama went out of his way to defend General Petraeus against MoveOn.org's attacks in 2007 that he was "General Betray Us." Perhaps he had a late epiphany.
Look for Mr. Obama to use his forthcoming visit to Iraq as an excuse to drop those withdrawal plans faster than he can say Jeremiah Wright "was not the person that I met 20 years ago." The Senator will learn – as John McCain has been saying – that withdrawal would squander the gains from the surge, set back Iraqi political progress, and weaken America's strategic position against Iran. Our guess is that he'll spin this switcheroo as some kind of conditional commitment, saying he'll stay in Iraq as long as Iraqis are making progress on political reconciliation, and so on. As things improve in Iraq, this would be Mr. Bush's policy too.
Mr. Obama has also made ostentatious leaps toward Mr. Bush on domestic issues. While he once bid for labor support by pledging a unilateral rewrite of Nafta, the Democrat now says he favors free trade as long as it works for "everybody." His economic aide, Austan Goolsbee, has been liberated from the five-month purdah he endured for telling Canadians that Mr. Obama's protectionism was merely campaign rhetoric. Now that Mr. Obama is in a general election, he can't scare the business community too much.
Back in the day, the first-term Senator also voted against the Supreme Court nominations of John Roberts and Samuel Alito. But last week he agreed with their majority opinion in the Heller gun rights case, and with their dissent against the liberal majority's ruling to ban the death penalty for rape. Mr. Obama seems to appreciate that getting pegged as a cultural lefty is deadly for national Democrats – at least until November.
This week the great Democratic hope even endorsed spending more money on faith-based charities. Apparently, this core plank of Mr. Bush's "compassionate conservatism" is not the assault on church-state separation that the ACLU and liberals have long claimed. And yesterday, Mr. Obama's campaign unveiled an ad asserting his support for welfare reform that "slashed the rolls by 80 percent." Never mind that Mr. Obama has declared multiple times that he opposed the landmark 1996 welfare reform.
* * *
All of which prompts a couple of thoughts. The first is that Mr. Obama doesn't seem to think American political sentiment has moved as far left as most of the media claim. Another is that the next President, whether Democrat or Republican, is going to embrace much of Mr. Bush's foreign and antiterror policy whether he admits it or not. Think Eisenhower endorsing Truman's Cold War architecture.
Most important is the matter of Mr. Obama's political character – and how honest he is being about what he truly believes. His voting record in the Senate and in Illinois, as well as his primary positions, would make him the most liberal Presidential candidate since George McGovern in 1972. But he clearly doesn't want voters to believe that in November. He's still the Obama Americans don't know.
***********************
"We've laid the groundwork. It's like planting the seeds. And next year, it's spring." - Nader
***********************
Prepare for tending to your garden, America.
The Mind and the Obama Magic
by George Lakoff
Barack Obama should not be moving toward right-wing views on issues — even with nuanced escape clauses. Arianna Huffington, Paul Krugman and the NY Times Editorial Page all agree, for various reasons. I agree as well, for many of the same reasons, as well as important reasons that go beyond even excellent political commentary. My reasons have to do with results in the cognitive and brain sciences, as discussed in my recent book, The Political Mind: Why You Can’t Understand 21st Century Politics with an 18th Century Brain.
But before I get into the details, it is important to get a sense of why Obama might be “moving to the Right.” There are at least two possibilities. The first is for political expediency. The second is to reassure voters that he is a responsible leader, not a crazy radical. Let’s start with the first possibility — expediency, the one assumed by most observers.
The Political Expediency Argument
The usual political wisdom is (1) voters vote on the basis of positions on issues, (2) there is a left-to-right spectrum of voters defined by positions on issues, (3) most voters are in the “center.” Polls are constructed to appear consistent with this tripartite hypothesis. The Dick Morris strategy, based on this hypothesis, says: if a Democrat moves the Right, he will get more votes because he will “take away” the other side’s issues. If Obama and his advisors believe this, then the more they more to the Right, the bigger their win should be. But all three hypotheses are false, and so is the conclusion based on it.
First, voters mostly vote not on the details of positions on issues, but on five aspects of what might be called “character,” as Richard Wirthlin discovered in the 1980 Reagan campaign. (pdf) They are Values (What are the ethical principles that form the basis of your politics?); Authenticity (Do you say what you believe?); Communication (Do you connect with voters and inspire them?); Judgment; Trust; and Identity (If you share voters’ values, connect with them, tell them the truth effectively while inspiring trust, then they will identify with you — and they will voter for you. Positions on issues matter when they come to stand symbolically for values. Reagan and George W. Bush understood this. Carter, Mondale, Gore, and Kerry did not. And in the primaries. Hillary Clinton did not get it (she focused on policy, while Obama and McCain focused more on character, on who he was).
Values, authenticity, communication, judgment, and trust are not irrational reasons for voting for a president, even over positions on specific issues. The reason is that situations change, and what you rationally wind up depending on are just those virtues.
Obama introduced himself to the primary voters not as a policy wonk, but as a person of character, who announced his values, said what he believed (no pussyfooting), communicated beautifully and powerfully, and gave examples of his good judgment–he was someone you could trust and identify with. That was a major part of the Obama magic. If Obama even appears to adopt Right-wing views for the sake of getting more votes, he will appear to be giving up on his values, renouncing his authenticity and believability, clouding his judgment, and raising questions about whether he can be trusted. The Obama magic will be in danger of fading.
Let us now turn to the second reason. There are two major modes of thought in American politics — conservative and progressive, what I’ve called “strict” and “nurturant.” We all grow up with brains exposed to both and capable of using both, but usually in different areas of life. Some people are conservative on foreign policy and progressive on domestic policy, or conservative on economic issues and progressive on social issues–or the reverse. There is no left-to-right linear spectrum; all kinds of combinations occur. I’ve called such folks “biconceptuals.” Brainwise, they show a common situation called “mutual inhibition,” where two modes of thought are possible but the activation of one inhibits the other. The more you activate a conservative mode of thought, the more you inhibit the progressive mode of thought — and the more likely it is that the conservative mode of thought will spread to other issues.
Interestingly, many people who call themselves “conservatives” actually think like progressives on a range of issue areas. For example, many “conservatives” love the land as much as any environmentalist; want to live in communities where people care about each other, that is, have social not just individual responsibility; live progressive business principles of honesty, care for their employees, and care for the public; and have progressive religious values: helping the poor, caring for the sick, being good stewards of the God’s creation, turning the other cheek. One view of “bipartisanship” for progressives is finding self-described conservatives and independents who have such progressive values and working with them on that basis. That’s what Obama did when he went to Rick Warren’s megachurch and it is his strategy in Project Joshua. Note that this is the opposite of the form of bipartisanship that involves really adopting right-wing values, or even appearing to. What this bipartisan strategy does, from the brain’s viewpoint, is to activate the progressive mode of thought in the brains of conservatives, and thus tends to inhibit conservative thought.
But the form of bipartisanship that involves adopting, or appearing to adopt, right-wing views has the opposite effect. It strengthens conservative thought in the brains on those biconceptuals and weakens progressive thought. In short, it actually helps conservatives. Rather than “taking arguments away from them” it strengthens their basic values and hence all their arguments. It give conservatives more reason, not less, for voting for conservatives.
If Obama adopts, or appears to adopt, right-wing positions, he may still win, since McCain is such a weak candidate. But it will hurt Democrats running for office all up and down the ticket, since it will strengthen general conservative positions on all issues and hence work in the favor of conservative candidates.
As has often been said, if you are a conservative, why vote for the progressive spouting conservative views when you can vote for a real conservative?
In short, if Obama adopts, or appears to adopt, right-wing views, he will not only hurt himself, but also hurt other Democrats.
The Responsibility Position
Suppose that Obama’s motivation is not political expediency, but rather an attempt to counter both right-wing and centrist stereotypes of progressives as being irresponsible.
Adopting, or appearing to adopt, right-wing positions is not going to work, and will only hurt, for reasons given above. What is the alternative?
In The Audacity of Hope, Obama portrays what I would call progressive ideals as simply American ideals, and he continued that account throughout the primary campaign. I think it is a correct account. And I think it is the key to uniting the country without adopting right-wing views. From this perspective, responsibility and the strength and judgment to act responsibly works with empathy (caring about other people) to define the basic American ideals: freedom, fairness, equality, opportunity, and so on. One can speak from this perspective of “full responsibility” both social and individual as central to the American vision, and they say what it means to be both responsible and committed to American ideals in each issue area. Moving to right-wing views, and abandoning American ideals, is never necessary to win.
A Final Word on Nuanced Escape Clauses
When Obama ran for Senator in Illinois he had to at least appear to support Illinois industries — coal, ethanol, and nuclear energy. He has used nuanced escape clauses, such as if it turns out to be economically feasible, while aware that sequestered coal, corn ethanol, and nuclear could not be economically feasible. Is this good politics? It may have been for a new senator, but it is not for a president. The reason again is that doing so activates a conservative mode of thought and inhibits a progressive mode of thought, making the move to real alternative energy that much harder.
Positions like this depend on a deep mistake about policy. There are two aspects to policy: cognitive and material. Material policy is about the nuts and bolts, how things are to work in the world. Cognitive policy is about what the public has to have in its brain/mind in order to fully support the right material policies. Coal, nuclear energy, and ethanol are policy disasters, and even giving them phony support with nuanced escape clauses hurts the possibility of real energy reform, but it activates, and hence strengthens, the conservative modes of thought that lie behind those proposals.
Can You Avoid Attacks?
No. No matter how many right-wing views you move toward, you will be viciously attacked as too liberal, as influenced by radicals, as inexperienced, as unpatriotic, as all words and no content. Stick to your core values. Be yourself. Voters will respect you.
Why Understanding the Political Mind Matters
Politics looks different from the perspective of the cognitive and brain sciences. That is why I have written The Political Mind. Your arguments change when you start with how the brain and mind really work.
From the brain’s perspective, the pragmatic arguments and moral arguments converge: Don’t adopt right-wing positions for the sake of political expediency (that will backfire) or to demonstrate responsibility (that too will backfire). The best way to be expedient is to be authentic, stick to your core values, show and discuss responsibility, and thus garner trust. That is how to lead our nation, and to do so responsibly and toward fulfillment of its ideals.
George Lakoff is the author of The Political Mind: Why You Can’t Understand 20th Century American Politics with an 18th Century Brain. He is Goldman Distinguished Professor of Cognitive Science and Linguistics at the University of California at Berkeley.
Copyright © 2008 HuffingtonPost.com, Inc.
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/07/07/10162/print/
***********************
"We've laid the groundwork. It's like planting the seeds. And next year, it's spring." - Nader
***********************
Prepare for tending to your garden, America.
Primary Over, Hillary Won
by Dave Lindorff
Now that the primary season is over, we can see that the clear winner was Hillary Clinton.
Oh, I know. Barack Obama got the most votes and the most delegates, and he’ll be the Democratic presidential nominee this August, but increasingly, it’s becoming obvious that he’s just a pretty wrapper. Sneak a peak inside the wrapper and you’ll find Hillary Clinton inside.
Look at the facts.
No sooner did the last votes get counted in Montana, than Obama hied himself off to Washington to show his fealty to the America Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), where he promised to do whatever Israel wanted. You would have thought he was Bush or Hillary, so fulsome was his promise to unquestioningly back the worst policies and actions of Israel’s criminally insane right-wing government. Claim all of Jerusalem for the Jewish state? Fine by him. Starve and terrorize a million people in Gaza? No problemo. Attack Iran to prevent a merely suspected nuclear program from eventually producing a possible bomb? Okay. Negotiate with Hamas? Never.
Then there was the FISA and Fourth Amendment-violating campaign of spying by the National Security Agency. Some members of Congress and the courts have been trying for years to find out what Bush and Cheney have really been up to with this program, but they¹ve been stymied by the administration’s insistence that the phone companies, who enabled most of the spying, are immune from prosecution and don’t have to surrender records of, or talk about what they actually did. Congress, with the help of a spineless Democratic majority in both houses, came up in June with a bill that endorses the spying and gives retroactive immunity to the phone companies. 15 Senators - all Democrats - opposed that wretched sell-out of the Constitution and the American people. Sen. Obama supported it, just like Clinton.
When the Supreme Court, in a rare exception to a rash of reactionary rulings in the past few weeks, overturned a state law authorizing the death penalty for the rape of a child, Obama stood up for the death penalty, saying that he thought states should have the right to kill anyone who would sexually abuse a child. I guess he must think the states should be able to kill people convicted of killing someone too, since murder has to be at least as nasty as child rape. Another Clinton position. Never mind that most of the people who get the death penalty are persons of color, and that almost all the 4000 people on America¹s bulging death rows are either poor, desperately poor, retarded or simply insane. Never mind that rape is one of the most likely crimes to lead to wrongful convictions.
Barack was out there dissing black dads, too, charging them, as a class, with abandonment of their children, even though studies show that black fathers are no less likely to abandon their kids than are white dads. Okay, that’s not really a Hillary position. It’s more akin to Bill Clinton’s attacks on prominent blacks like Jesse Jackson or Sister Soulja during his campaigns for higher office.
It¹s getting harder and harder to see any light between Obama’s and Hillary’s positions on the Iraq War too, what with Obama backing away from his earlier campaign pledge to end the war within 16 months of taking office and saying instead that he would “listen to the generals” and that withdrawal would depend upon the situation on the ground.
Finally, Obama, after showing a remarkable ability to inspire tons of small donations and support from individuals, and to fund a huge national campaign without much in the way of corporate support, is greedily slurping from Hillary’s cesspool of corporate backers, now that she’s out of the way. Soon, he’ll be wallowing in tainted cash from Wall Street commercial and investment banks and hedge funds, telecom companies, defense contractors, Big Pharma companies, the HMO industry, and the entertainment industry. He’ll be owned like just about every other politician in Washington.
The transmogrification of an upstart people’s candidate for ‘change’ into just another front man for the corporatocracy will be complete.
Hillary will have won, but in the corporal form of Barack Obama.
The joke, of course, is that this evocation by Obama of his inner Clinton is not going to win him many votes, and may in fact lose him far more than he gains. Being Clinton, after all, didn’t win it for Hillary Clinton. It was Obama¹s differences from Clinton that won him the primary votes.
Clintonian positions didn’t really win the presidency for Bill Clinton either. It was Ross Perot who won the 1992 election for Clinton, by stealing enough votes from George Bush Sr. to let Clinton win with a mere plurality of the votes cast. There won’t be any Ross Perot this year, though, so Obama can’t hope to squeak by with a minority of the votes cast the way Bill did. In fact there will be at least two candidates - a Green Party one and Ralph Nader - who will be picking off some of the people Obama’s imitation of Clinton will turn off sufficiently for them to abandon him. There will also be a Libertarian candidate running, whose outspoken opposition to the war will attract disillusioned erstwhile Obama backers. Many more voters may just stay home in disgust. (It was also Al Gore’s decision to run a Clintonesque campaign or triangulation and pursuit of those elusive “mainstream” voters that made his run against Bush in 2000 close enough for the election to be stolen.)
Meanwhile, those Hillary primary voters Obama seems intent on pursuing at the expense of the progressive vote‹the pro-Israel hawks in New York and Florida, the “hard-working whites” of the West Virginia hollers, the Pennsylvania hills and the flatlands of Ohio and Indiana aren’t going to vote for him just because he adopts Hillary’s positions. They¹ll want the real deal, not just a front man posing as a front woman, so they’ll go for John McCain (just as they would have in November had Hillary won the nomination).
You gotta ask why a guy who had it all going for him is suddenly making such incredibly bad strategic decisions.
It has to be either that he’s brought on board too many Clinton backers, or that his own strategists have lost confidence in their own game plan. In his bid for Democratic Party “unity” Obama has sold whatever soul he once had.
He has met the enemy, and he has become her.
Dave Lindorff’s most recent book is “The Case for Impeachment” (St. Martin’s Press, 2006). His work is available at http://www.thiscantbehappening.net.
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/06/28/9954/print/
***********************
"We've laid the groundwork. It's like planting the seeds. And next year, it's spring." - Nader
***********************
Prepare for tending to your garden, America.