Barak Obama-just another politician.

Commy

In an interview with the editorial board of the Chicago Tribune published September 26, Democratic Senate candidate Barack Obama said he would favor the use of “surgical” missile strikes against Iran if it failed to bow to Washington’s demand that it eliminate its nuclear energy program. Obama also said that, in the event of a coup that removed the Musharraf regime in Pakistan, the US should attack that nation’s nuclear arsenal.


http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/feb2007/obam-f13.shtml

musicismylife78

excellent post. While I dont doubt that Obama may be a good guy, its about time someone on here broke through the cult of personality and the current nation wide Obama love affair that is engulfing us.

I saw an interview with him on CSpan in 2003 or 2004, and he said "I am no pacifist, and if pushed I would support wars with North Korea and Iran"

yet every time I say this to people, they dont believe it. Its like people have no memory.

While obama seems like a new type of politician, he in my mind is in fact the same old boss we have had for centuries.

The question is begging for asking: If you are antiwar, and you vote for Obama because you think he will get us out of Iraq, how is he going to alter things for the better by going to war with iran and north korea?

It isnt a fair trade off in my book. War in Iraq for war in iran and North Korea?

Seems like we need a politician who vows not to get us into another war, and will NOT attack North korea and Iran. and will pull all troops out of Iraq.

Plus it makes no sense whatsoever to go after North Korea. If you think Bush is stupid, he at least knows enough that if he attacks north Korea that we would have what they used to call in the cold war "MAD" or mutual assured destruction. Meaning we would use a nuke on them, and they would use one on us, thus killing everyone on the globe. Bush knows enough not to be that stupid.

Yet Obama seems to be stupid enough to kill us all

AND you thought bush was bad.

Thats what I meant in previous threads. There is NO CHOICE currently for 2008. Either you vote for hilary and her prowar crap or vote for obama and he will get us out of Iraq but will get more of our young ones killed in other wars.

How hard is it to say "I am running for president, and I am a pacifist. I will bring all the troops home from all bases, and will not wage any more wars that kills innocent civilians and kill of our young generation".

musicismylife78

as I said before, most dems are merely for changing tactics and not bringing the troops home. As said before Kucinich was the only mainstream candidate who called for withdrawal, and is the only dem with his hat in the ring for 2008 with a similar plan of withdrawal.

I am still pro nader. But its sad, i really have no doubt, that the dems will refuse to nominate kucinich. Which is depressing considering there are alot of people who think he has good ideas.

Abookamongstthemany

Obamas votes concerning the Patriot Act, free trade and the war are enough for me to pass on him. His plan for Iraq seems like a watered down Bush plan requiring an extended occupation for god knows how long really. His comments on Iran are not surprising and I have strong doubts about his commitment to UHC.

Bu2

http://www.barackobama.com/2002/10/26/remarks_of_illinois_state_sen.php

Abookamongstthemany

On Friday Obama gave a speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) in Chicago. It had been much anticipated in American Jewish political circles which buzzed about his intensive efforts to woo wealthy pro-Israel campaign donors who up to now have generally leaned towards his main rival Senator Hillary Clinton.

Reviewing the speech, Ha'aretz Washington correspondent Shmuel Rosner concluded that Obama "sounded as strong as Clinton, as supportive as Bush, as friendly as Giuliani. At least rhetorically, Obama passed any test anyone might have wanted him to pass. So, he is pro-Israel. Period."

Israel is "our strongest ally in the region and its only established democracy," Obama said, assuring his audience that "we must preserve our total commitment to our unique defense relationship with Israel by fully funding military assistance and continuing work on the Arrow and related missile defense programs." Such advanced multi-billion dollar systems he asserted, would help Israel "deter missile attacks from as far as Tehran and as close as Gaza." As if the starved, besieged and traumatized population of Gaza are about to develop intercontinental ballistic missiles.

Obama offered not a single word of criticism of Israel, of its relentless settlement and wall construction, of the closures that make life unlivable for millions of Palestinians.
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article6619.shtml

LikeAnOcean

Obama is playing the game to election. You don't play that game, you don't get elected. (Nader) If you want him to go totally left now, then be prepared for four more years of another war mongering Republican president.

El_Kabong

Cheguevara6 wrote:

excellent post. While I dont doubt that Obama may be a good guy, its about time someone on here broke through the cult of personality and the current nation wide Obama love affair that is engulfing us.

there's been plenty said

http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=234406

also, i saw on cnn tonight that when he was in alabama talking to white ppl he had a normal accent, then later in the day when he was talking to a black church he suddenly had a southern drawl and spoke differently...seems like pandering

LikeAnOcean

El_Kabong wrote:

also, i saw on cnn tonight that when he was in alabama talking to white ppl he had a normal accent, then later in the day when he was talking to a black church he suddenly had a southern drawl and spoke differently...seems like pandering

Do you not talk differently to different types of people? Do You talk the same way to your friends as you would your parents or boss? Getting into office is a game. If you don't play that game, the other guy who plays it gets in.

Bu2

LikeAnOcean wrote:

Obama is playing the game to election. You don't play that game, you don't get elected. (Nader) If you want him to go totally left now, then be prepared for four more years of another war mongering Republican president.

Folks, don't get me wrong. Up until now I was a Republican. My move to Obama wasn't only based on his anti-Iraq-war stance. It was based on the fact that my party has disappointed me, time and time again. McCain disappoints me. Rudy seems a step up but he's quoting the same rhetoric as Bush, so far, when it comes to the war. I watched Bush's State of the Union address and I watched Rudy's interview afterwards. It really saddened me.

Kucinich makes a lot of sense, but I have to be realistic. He's at 1% in the polls so far. Except for here in the Pit, I've never even heard him mentioned on the news. I'm going for a candidate who has shown himself capable of being bipartisan, intelligent, inspiring....and who has a chance. Who would've thought two months ago that Obama would be so close to the Hillary Machine in the polls this soon? I watch both of them daily on the internet, and he is getting much better press. Yes, Rudy beats both of them in the press, and polls, so far....but Rudy is backing Bush's surge in troops, too.

musicismylife78

LikeAnOcean wrote:

Do you not talk differently to different types of people? Do You talk the same way to your friends as you would your parents or boss? Getting into office is a game. If you don't play that game, the other guy who plays it gets in.

I am not into people that play games. I dont like people who do things, bad things, or things at all costs to win. Thats wrong. I want someone who says "hey this wars wrong, lets pull out now and end the war".

Politicians are jerks. They are liars. i want someone who tells the truth.

Its quite telling that someone like an Eddie Vedder or Jon Stewart or Bruce Springsteen or ian mackaye would all make better presidents than any of the candidates. Its telling when a man who helms a fake news show is a better and more informed person than any of the people running in 2008.

I am sick of being lied to. I want the truth. If you can point out a politician who is doing that besides Kucinich, then by all means...

LikeAnOcean

Cheguevara6 wrote:

I am not into people that play games. I dont like people who do things, bad things, or things at all costs to win. Thats wrong. I want someone who says "hey this wars wrong, lets pull out now and end the war".

Politicians are jerks. They are liars. i want someone who tells the truth.

Its quite telling that someone like an Eddie Vedder or Jon Stewart or Bruce Springsteen or ian mackaye would all make better presidents than any of the candidates. Its telling when a man who helms a fake news show is a better and more informed person than any of the people running in 2008.

I am sick of being lied to. I want the truth. If you can point out a politician who is doing that besides Kucinich, then by all means...

You are totally right. I'm glad you are firm on your belief, but just know, the guy you support 100% is never going to get elected. It's not the way it works. It's not the way it will ever work. Your opinion is just as valid as the guy who is the opposite. Unless you are the only one, there will always have to be a center ground. Compromising must take place, and compromising is part of the political game. You have to give a little before you take a little. Obama is about as far to the left as you'll see having any chance of making it to the White House.

Abookamongstthemany

Bu2 wrote:

Kucinich makes a lot of sense, but I have to be realistic. He's at 1% in the polls so far. Except for here in the Pit, I've never even heard him mentioned on the news.

The things is....if people like you wouldn't be afraid of throwing your vote away he would have WAY more than 1%. It's effectively letting the media and the money tell us who to vote for. I'm going to vote for someone who I agree with at least for the most part on the key issues. No one can make your vote not count except yourself going against what you believe in. There's always the opportunity in this country for change...we just have to man up and do it.

El_Kabong

LikeAnOcean wrote:

Do you not talk differently to different types of people? Do You talk the same way to your friends as you would your parents or boss? Getting into office is a game. If you don't play that game, the other guy who plays it gets in.

not all that much

when i'm around black friends i don't start saying things like 'say word, son!' or anything like that

when i'm around german ppl at work i don't suddenly adopt a german accent in my speech.

i don't do those things b/c it seems disingenuous.

the difference in speaking to a friend vs a boss is not the same thing as you're in the south so suddenly you adopt a southern accent or i'm around black ppl so suddenly i talk like them...all i'm saying is it seems like an act, which it is.

Abookamongstthemany

LikeAnOcean wrote:

You are totally right. I'm glad you are firm on your belief, but just know, the guy you support 100% is never going to get elected. It's not the way it works. It's not the way it will ever work. Your opinion is just as valid as the guy who is the opposite. Unless you are the only one, there will always have to be a center ground. Compromising must take place, and compromising is part of the political game. You have to give a little before you take a little. Obama is about as far to the left as you'll see having any chance of making it to the White House.

What a sad, bleak view to have...that we will never have any options other than these sorry two choices of Dems or Reps. Your dismal line of thinking keeps 3rd parties out, complete lack of faith and hope and an unwillingness to stand up for what's right. Your line of thinking is what keeps them in power and creates what we have now...a government with no accountabilty. Why should they even worry about all the wrong they do? They know they'll have people like you telling everyone this is as good as it's ever going to get, this is the best we can do so deal with. You can save that load of crap because I ain't buying it.

RainDog

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

What a sad, bleak view to have...that we will never have any options other than these sorry two choices of Dems or Reps. Your dismal line of thinking keeps 3rd parties out, complete lack of faith and hope and an unwillingness to stand up for what's right. Your line of thinking is what keeps them in power and creates what we have now...a government with no accountabilty. Why should they even worry about all the wrong they do? They know they'll have people like you telling everyone this is as good as it's ever going to get, this is the best we can do so deal with. You can save that load of crap because I ain't buying it.

Actually, it's our voting system that keeps third parties out. When you can win by simply having the highest total number of votes, regardless of percentage, unions of near-similar thought will pull together under one banner to best that last winners vote total. Then, when those under that banner win, those who didn't vote for that banner will pull together to try to get an even higher percentage - and in the process try to pull "soft" votes from the other side by specifically addressing certain issues (relevant or not) that the soft voters held their nose on. So say it breaks down like this:
3% for Party 1 (Socialist)
14% for Party 2 (Hard Core Liberal)
30.8% for Party 3 (Soft Liberal)
29.2% for Party 4 (Soft Conservative)
19% for Party 5 (Hard Core Conservative)
4% for Party 6 (Fascist)
Under this scenerio, Party 3 wins the election. Parties 1 and 2 continue to complain a bit, but it's Parties 4, 5, and 6 that are really pissed. So they pull together and look past certain issues to beat Party 3. The next election looks like this:
3% for Party 1 (Socialist)
14% for Party 2 (Hard Core Liberal)
30.8% for Party 3 (Soft Liberal)
38.2% for Party 4 (Soft Conservative)
10% for Party 5 (Hard Core Conservative)
4% for Party 6 (Fascist)
So this time it's Party 4 that wins the election, and Parties 1, 2, and 3 are super pissed. So they do the same as Party 4 did and pull resources - and the easiest to pull under is Party 3. This back and forth continues until the only viable options (in fact, they were always the only viable options) are Parties 3 and 4. The only way to break Party 3 or Party 4 is to overtake it. But then all you've done is change the name of the party - you're still going to end up with two.

The only way to really change this is to implement either a proportional represention style democracy or a run-off election system. Even then, the executive branch would still likely fall under one of the two middle parties, but you'd see the legislative branch open up quite a bit.

LikeAnOcean

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

What a sad, bleak view to have...that we will never have any options other than these sorry two choices of Dems or Reps. Your dismal line of thinking keeps 3rd parties out, complete lack of faith and hope and an unwillingness to stand up for what's right. Your line of thinking is what keeps them in power and creates what we have now...a government with no accountabilty. Why should they even worry about all the wrong they do? They know they'll have people like you telling everyone this is as good as it's ever going to get, this is the best we can do so deal with. You can save that load of crap because I ain't buying it.

I'm not saying I don't vote third party. I'm just saying how it is. It is a sad view, but its a fact. If I decide to vote for Nader, I will, but I will also accept that there's no way he will win.

Ahnimus

Turn your flag upside down and protest the ballot boxes.

The faces change, but the policies stay the same. It is not the responsibility of government to do what is right, it's to do what they are told.

Abookamongstthemany

RainDog wrote:

Actually, it's our voting system that keeps third parties out. When you can win by simply having the highest total number of votes, regardless of percentage, unions of near-similar thought will pull together under one banner to best that last winners vote total. Then, when those under that banner win, those who didn't vote for that banner will pull together to try to get an even higher percentage - and in the process try to pull "soft" votes from the other side by specifically addressing certain issues (relevant or not) that the soft voters held their nose on. So say it breaks down like this:
3% for Party 1 (Socialist)
14% for Party 2 (Hard Core Liberal)
30.8% for Party 3 (Soft Liberal)
29.2% for Party 4 (Soft Conservative)
19% for Party 5 (Hard Core Conservative)
4% for Party 6 (Fascist)
Under this scenerio, Party 3 wins the election. Parties 1 and 2 continue to complain a bit, but it's Parties 4, 5, and 6 that are really pissed. So they pull together and look past certain issues to beat Party 3. The next election looks like this:
3% for Party 1 (Socialist)
14% for Party 2 (Hard Core Liberal)
30.8% for Party 3 (Soft Liberal)
38.2% for Party 4 (Soft Conservative)
10% for Party 5 (Hard Core Conservative)
4% for Party 6 (Fascist)
So this time it's Party 4 that wins the election, and Parties 1, 2, and 3 are super pissed. So they do the same as Party 4 did and pull resources - and the easiest to pull under is Party 3. This back and forth continues until the only viable options (in fact, they were always the only viable options) are Parties 3 and 4. The only way to break Party 3 or Party 4 is to overtake it. But then all you've done is change the name of the party - you're still going to end up with two.

The only way to really change this is to implement either a proportional represention style democracy or a run-off election system. Even then, the executive branch would still likely fall under one of the two middle parties, but you'd see the legislative branch open up quite a bit.

Yes, our whole system is bullshit but I don't believe anything to be set in stone. If we gave ourselves more credit as human beings then we'd see the change....it's only a matter of time.

norm

RainDog wrote:

The only way to really change this is to implement either a proportional represention style democracy or a run-off election system. Even then, the executive branch would still likely fall under one of the two middle parties, but you'd see the legislative branch open up quite a bit.

http://www.instantrunoff.com/

NOCODE#1

Commy wrote:

In an interview with the editorial board of the Chicago Tribune published September 26, Democratic Senate candidate Barack Obama said he would favor the use of “surgical” missile strikes against Iran if it failed to bow to Washington’s demand that it eliminate its nuclear energy program. Obama also said that, in the event of a coup that removed the Musharraf regime in Pakistan, the US should attack that nation’s nuclear arsenal.


http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/feb2007/obam-f13.shtml

and this makes him bad because?????

i know another president who has a pretty good rep by using nuclear weapons.