he has deviated from that b/c a year and a half ago his 'stance' was we stay until the insurgency was defeated and even then we keep US troops there...he even made the point to state "Notice that I say "reduce," and not "fully withdraw." "
he also wanted to maintain permanent military bases in iraq so syria and iran know we are serious...
now that the polls say pullout he is about pulling out?
You want your guy to win, so you'll say it's based on polls. You could be correct.
Me? I'd vote for either in the general. So I'll say that while it's possible it's based on polls - it's just as likely that in the last year and a half, roughly eighteen months' worth of events have happened.
But I don't know exactly what he said one year and six months ago. I'll have to go back and find it.
You can get a little more info about someone reading it rather then listening to 2 minute response from a "debate".
The thing is this link shows very carefully contrived and presented perspectives, geared to minimize flaws and faults--like how a resume presents a false and "best" rather than realistic face for us. The way someone answers off the top of their head in two minutes can give hints into their real personality, beneath the carefully constructed communication efforts, designed by entire and savvy teams who brief them regarding all levels of their image. This process is geared to bring them victory. In a debate, they are all lined up with their carefully constructed responses, and the glaring flaws and strong points leap out at us from behind the facades.
I study communication, and man, this link is top-quality in terms of public relations polish, whether constructed by him or by someone else. That is not to say anything bad about the man himself.
Just check out his "action" words, "illustrating" to us unconscously, how he is the man to defend america:
"As a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Obama has fought to strengthen America's position in the world. Reaching across the aisle, Obama has tackled problems such as preventing the spread of weapons of mass destruction and stopping the genocide in Darfur."
It's very intense, in convincing us beyond our surface awareness. This stuff is brilliant in terms of neurolinguistic programming. And yes, they also do this in public with their speaking, but in a debate, their humanness gets hooked from behind the polish and they react from who they ARE as well as from the image.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
The thing is this link shows very carefully contrived and presented perspectives, geared to minimize flaws and faults--like how a resume presents a false and "best" rather than realistic face for us. The way someone answers off the top of their head in two minutes can give hints into their real personality, beneath the carefully constructed communication efforts, designed by entire and savvy teams who brief them regarding all levels of their image. This process is geared to bring them victory. In a debate, they are all lined up with their carefully constructed responses, and the glaring flaws and strong points leap out at us from behind the facades.
I study communication, and man, this link is top-quality in terms of public relations polish, whether constructed by him or by someone else. That is not to say anything bad about the man himself.
Just check out his "action" words, "illustrating" to us unconscously, how he is the man to defend america:
"As a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Obama has fought to strengthen America's position in the world. Reaching across the aisle, Obama has tackled problems such as preventing the spread of weapons of mass destruction and stopping the genocide in Darfur."
It's very intense, in convincing us beyond our surface awareness. This stuff is brilliant in terms of neurolinguistic programming. And yes, they also do this in public with their speaking, but in a debate, their humanness gets hooked from behind the polish and they react from who they ARE as well as from the image.
I agree that it is important to have debates so that the public can actually hear what the candidate is saying. The reason the link was provided is because many have stated that he hasn't come out and really made clear what he stands for. Of course you will get extremely well chosen words on a candidate's page, if not any mistake will be amplified by other candidates and the media. It pretty much works that way on any politician's website. I was simply providing a means for people to learn a little bit more about him, rather then saying "well shit, his two minute response on health care didn't really cover every step he will take to fix the problem..."
You want your guy to win, so you'll say it's based on polls. You could be correct.
Me? I'd vote for either in the general. So I'll say that while it's possible it's based on polls - it's just as likely that in the last year and a half, roughly eighteen months' worth of events have happened.
But I don't know exactly what he said one year and six months ago. I'll have to go back and find it.
when you do find it, can you tell me if he ever said something like 'this is how i feel about this now and i will never, ever change my plan--certainly not after reading new intelligence reports, meeting with military advisors, and certainly most absolutely not after listening to the american people, especially the residents of the great state of illinois--the people who voted me in office to act as their representative'.? depending on your answer, i may have to reconsider some things here.
what continually surprises me about media/general public reactions to politicians, is that some seem to forget that politicians are supposed to act on our behalf, well that's one of the two main ways to do it (the other model is to do whatever they want and ignore their constituents' wishes and leave it up to them to vote them back in office, and a somewhat third is a combination of both models). so what is so bad if one reason a decision is made is that the public opinion changed? that's their job, they are politicans that we elect. i can understand though that this could have been forgotten seeing as though the bush administration did not really give a care at what public opinion was. though i suppose they support the *other* model.
if you wanna be a friend of mine
cross the river to the eastside
when you do find it, can you tell me if he ever said something like 'this is how i feel about this now and i will never, ever change my plan--certainly not after reading new intelligence reports, meeting with military advisors, and certainly most absolutely not after listening to the american people, especially the residents of the great state of illinois--the people who voted me in office to act as their representative'.? depending on your answer, i may have to reconsider some things here.
what continually surprises me about media/general public reactions to politicians, is that some seem to forget that politicians are supposed to act on our behalf, well that's one of the two main ways to do it (the other model is to do whatever they want and ignore their constituents' wishes and leave it up to them to vote them back in office, and a somewhat third is a combination of both models). so what is so bad if one reason a decision is made is that the public opinion changed? that's their job, they are politicans that we elect. i can understand though that this could have been forgotten seeing as though the bush administration did not really give a care at what public opinion was. though i suppose they support the *other* model.
Sure, our elected officials are the peoples laborers, but it's a different dynamic when they are running for election. If they are going to be vague and pat-answer-everyday blah-blah-blah, waiting for the mood that best exemplifies the moment...then they aren't anything better than the next Republican. Clinton and Barack are just such candidates, and that's the fact, ma'am.
Sure, our elected officials are the peoples laborers, but it's a different dynamic when they are running for election. If they are going to be vague and pat-answer-everyday blah-blah-blah, waiting for the mood that best exemplifies the moment...then they aren't anything better than the next Republican. Clinton and Barack are just such candidates, and that's the fact, ma'am.
i don't think obama has been too vague for me. i don't think i've known so much about a candidate this far ahead of an election. so i disagree with your facts, not that it even matters.
if you wanna be a friend of mine
cross the river to the eastside
i don't think obama has been too vague for me. i don't think i've known so much about a candidate this far ahead of an election. so i disagree with your facts, not that it even matters.
He's interchangeable with any moderate in DC today.
I agree that it is important to have debates so that the public can actually hear what the candidate is saying. The reason the link was provided is because many have stated that he hasn't come out and really made clear what he stands for. Of course you will get extremely well chosen words on a candidate's page, if not any mistake will be amplified by other candidates and the media. It pretty much works that way on any politician's website. I was simply providing a means for people to learn a little bit more about him, rather then saying "well shit, his two minute response on health care didn't really cover every step he will take to fix the problem..."
Okay.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I think he is an inexperienced nobody running an campaign of exploitation. Don't let him or Hilary win, please! We need a real leader, and I haven't seen a single candidate competent for the job (maybe Bill Richardson).
Life reveals what is dealt through seasons
Circle comes around each time
I think he is an inexperienced nobody running an campaign of exploitation. Don't let him or Hilary win, please! We need a real leader, and I haven't seen a single candidate competent for the job (maybe Bill Richardson).
I have been a fan of Richardson's for a few years now and I think that he has the perfect background to be a president, but he is not doing himself any favors in these debates. He just isn't good at the soundbyte answer format, but in a one on one interview where he can explain himself, he is very engaging.
I would be comfortable however voting for Obama in the general election if it got to that point.
My whole life
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
You want your guy to win, so you'll say it's based on polls. You could be correct.
Me? I'd vote for either in the general. So I'll say that while it's possible it's based on polls - it's just as likely that in the last year and a half, roughly eighteen months' worth of events have happened.
But I don't know exactly what he said one year and six months ago. I'll have to go back and find it.
no, i say it b/c a year and a half ago he gave a speech, which is on his own site and dated, as well as another speech in chicago saying we needed to stay and defeat the insurgency and even after that we still have to have some personel there....now that the polls show more ppl want us out that is suddenly what he's saying, no more 'notice i said reduce, not withdrawl'
it just seems odd to me, is all...if kucinich said it i would think the same, but he has been consistent from the first day
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
when you do find it, can you tell me if he ever said something like 'this is how i feel about this now and i will never, ever change my plan--certainly not after reading new intelligence reports, meeting with military advisors, and certainly most absolutely not after listening to the american people, especially the residents of the great state of illinois--the people who voted me in office to act as their representative'.? depending on your answer, i may have to reconsider some things here.
what continually surprises me about media/general public reactions to politicians, is that some seem to forget that politicians are supposed to act on our behalf, well that's one of the two main ways to do it (the other model is to do whatever they want and ignore their constituents' wishes and leave it up to them to vote them back in office, and a somewhat third is a combination of both models). so what is so bad if one reason a decision is made is that the public opinion changed? that's their job, they are politicans that we elect. i can understand though that this could have been forgotten seeing as though the bush administration did not really give a care at what public opinion was. though i suppose they support the *other* model.
all he had to do was read the intel reports from before the war started to get the exact same info!!!
again, it seems a bit odd the timing that he used to be about 'notice i said reduce, not withdrawl' and now that public opinion has changed so has he...you can say he's just doing what the public wants, to me it seems he's just saying what the public wants
since you know so much about him, more than any other candidate in history, feel free to reply in my other obama thread, if you already haven't
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
all he had to do was read the intel reports from before the war started to get the exact same info!!!
again, it seems a bit odd the timing that he used to be about 'notice i said reduce, not withdrawl' and now that public opinion has changed so has he...you can say he's just doing what the public wants, to me it seems he's just saying what the public wants
since you know so much about him, more than any other candidate in history, feel free to reply in my other obama thread, if you already haven't
he wasn't a u.s. senator before the war started. would he have had the access to reports then? i'm comfortable with what he says when he says it and you're not. i don't see a point in arguing about it because i can see it going nowhere. because it hasn't all along.
i didn't say i knew more about him than any other candidate in history. i said this was the first time [for me] that i know so much about a candidate so early in the election process. and it's stuff like that that makes me feel additional responses are a futile effort on my behalf.
if you wanna be a friend of mine
cross the river to the eastside
is the closest candidate I can find today to the one that I want in our White House.
He was not able to vote against Bush's strike into Iraq but he opposed it before opposition to the war was "popular".
His vote last week against further funding made me proud.
I had voiced my doubts about Obama after hearing him say that, with Iran, "no options are off the table", and that statement made me nervous, but I now retract my nervousness, because all the other candidates make me twice as nervous.
Yes, I love what Dennis Kucinich has to say, but no, I don't believe Kucinich will be President any time soon. I love his ideals, but this country and this world are not ready for them.
Knowing what we all know, by now, about how the world works, how nukes work, how peacekeeping and - yes - how wars work, the country is not ready for a Kucinich.
Obama at least can keep his head clear, he can make his statements very clear, and he knows how to compromise and reach a goal towards the best solution, even moving across party lines when the need arises.
When it comes to Iran, he's right. No president should keep all options off the table, especially if he's got the skills to use his smarter options, and not his tougher ones.
Obama for President.
He's got my vote. And I've been a Republican for 20 years +. I just registered Democrat last month so that I can vote for the man I believe will do our country the least amount of harm, and do our country the greatest amount of good.
"Good afternoon. Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances.....I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars" - Barack Obama
does he get to define what a 'dumb war' is? what if i think attacking iran, which he supports, is a 'dumb war'??
i posted this in one of the other threads and will repeat it here (adding a bit)
Peaceful, diplomatic solutions are, without question, the best choice in any situation, but where do you draw the line. Lets look at some very real, possibilities and hypotheticals. Lets suppose Iran becomes nuclearly viable. Lets suppose they start aiming those weapons at various nations and making wild threats. Suppose they fire off a couple of those weapons. Just when does a world leader, however unfortunate it may be, HAVE to say enough is enough something MUST be done? When does doing nothing become the truly "Dumb" thing.
Please do not get me wrong. i in no way advocate preemptive, preventative war with Iran (please show me where Obama says that he does). None of these hypotheticals have happened, hopefully they never will. Right now i trust that they won't. But, they are not out of the range of possibility. Where do you draw the line? Tough questions that any prospective world leader has to deal with.
"When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
he wasn't a u.s. senator before the war started. would he have had the access to reports then? i'm comfortable with what he says when he says it and you're not. i don't see a point in arguing about it because i can see it going nowhere. because it hasn't all along.
but he would have access when he was senator, right? or are you saying he just now found out the intel said these things would happen?
i didn't say i knew more about him than any other candidate in history. i said this was the first time [for me] that i know so much about a candidate so early in the election process. and it's stuff like that that makes me feel additional responses are a futile effort on my behalf.
well, however you worded it, i started the thread b/c so many ppl are behind him and i would like to know why...if someone started a 'why should i vote for dennis kucinich??' thread i'd have no problems explaining why and pointing them to his stances that i like...but it seems like it's pulling teeth to get that out of an obama supporter
if you don't want to say why you back him, fine
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
Back when I was a young'un in '92 a lot of the alterna-punk rockers I hung out with continually dumped on Pearl Jam for being too mainstream. I tried explaining to them that even though Pearl Jam were popular, they weren't trying to be the new pretty boy pop band they were made out to be. That they were actually pretty honest in their musical approach and that their popularity had more to do with the state of the world and music in general at the time as well as a media push generated by their initial recognition. But my friends never listened. Pearl Jam were sell-outs all. Now I'm hearing what appears to be the same chorus against Obama. Just an observation.
Anyway, in a side by side comparison: Abortion
Obama: Strongly Pro-Choice
Kucinich: Somewhat Pro-Choice since 2002 - flipped for the 2004 campaign (likely because the polls said he should) Afirmative Action
Both support it. Gay Rights
Both are pretty gay friendly. Kucinich supports outright marriage, Obama supports civil unions. I'll give it to Kucinich there, but not by much. Flag Desecration
Obama: Voted against a constitutional ban on flag desecration.
Kucinich: Voted in favor of a constitutional ban on flag desecration. (Huh?!?!) Federal funding for health coverage
Both favor more funding
Both oppose Privatizing Social Security, School Vouchers, the Death Penalty, Mandatory Sentencing, Absolute Right to Gun Ownership, Tax Cuts for the Wealthy, Expansion of Free Trade.
Where they differ the most? Obama supports churches providing some welfare, while Kucinich opposes it (point Kucinich IMO, though not one of my biggest issues). Kucinich wants to cut military spending significantly, Obama doesn't (kind of a wash there for me- it's the use I'm worried about).
Verdict? I'd vote for either of them in the general. In the primary, I'm going with Obama. Why? Well, not to borrow from the Republican Meme Use Handbook, but he's more of a uniter than Kucinich - and that's not a "should-be or shouldn't-be" argument. It's simply a statement of fact.
And, to my original statement - well, it seems Nirvana's the band hocking the most shit now, not Pearl Jam.
Yes, I love what Dennis Kucinich has to say, but no, I don't believe Kucinich will be President any time soon. I love his ideals, but this country and this world are not ready for them.
Knowing what we all know, by now, about how the world works, how nukes work, how peacekeeping and - yes - how wars work, the country is not ready for a Kucinich.
how will the world know when they are ready for him if ppl are too afraid vote for him?
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
but he would have access when he was senator, right? or are you saying he just now found out the intel said these things would happen?
well, however you worded it, i started the thread b/c so many ppl are behind him and i would like to know why...if someone started a 'why should i vote for dennis kucinich??' thread i'd have no problems explaining why and pointing them to his stances that i like...but it seems like it's pulling teeth to get that out of an obama supporter
if you don't want to say why you back him, fine
i already said i'm comfortable with what obama says when he says it about iraq. this is the stuff i am not willing to go back and forth on with you. i simply do not have the time or patience.
but you want me to say why i back him, fine:
ultimately if you really want to know, read the audacity of hope. much of what he says really inspired me. there's too much in there to type about here--i love his focus on education (especially college edu), health care (required cov for children, others have access to affordable care), and the need for foreign policy (!). i love that he keeps all options on tables regarding complex issues like war--i don't trust those who say otherwise. he also addresses some underlying issues that affect all the other issues--race and economic class (doesn't address gender as much as the others, but i can help him with that). too often candidates don't acknowlege those issues.
also, the way he is as a person does matter to me. i'm not ashamed to say i like his charisma. you know why? he gets people to work with him! he has worked with all sorts of other politicians to actually accomplish things. also, i think he is *realistic*. and that has never been more important to me than now. i feel there are some serious things that need to be addressed and fixed in this country and we need a realistic leader, which i think he is both--realistic and a leader. i love that he is younger too. he seems to be very smart, realistic, and can work with people to make things happen. you can't get stuff done from the inside if you are too extreme and don't work with a broad base. change happens in stages.
finally one of the biggest reasons i like him is that he has ALWAYS been strongly pro-choice.
here is an great example of why i like obama (illustrating some qualities important to me):
"I believe we must work together to reduce the number of unintended pregnancies. I support legislation to expand access to contraception, health information, and preventative services to help reduce unintended pregnancies. That is why I co-sponsored the Prevention First Act of 2007, which will increase funding for family planning and comprehensive sex education that teaches both abstinence and safe sex methods. It will also end insurance discrimination against contraception, improve awareness about emergency contraception, and provide compassionate assistance to rape victims.
if you wanna be a friend of mine
cross the river to the eastside
Back when I was a young'un in '92 a lot of the alterna-punk rockers I hung out with continually dumped on Pearl Jam for being too mainstream. I tried explaining to them that even though Pearl Jam were popular, they weren't trying to be the new pretty boy pop band they were made out to be. That they were actually pretty honest in their musical approach and that their popularity had more to do with the state of the world and music in general at the time as well as a media push generated by their initial recognition. But my friends never listened. Pearl Jam were sell-outs all. Now I'm hearing what appears to be the same chorus against Obama. Just an observation.
i love this post so much i'd like to marry it. or at least buy it a promise ring.
if you wanna be a friend of mine
cross the river to the eastside
But my friends never listened. Pearl Jam were sell-outs all. Now I'm hearing what appears to be the same chorus against Obama. Just an observation.
.
i think this assessment just may be spot on. Obama is a popular guy, and people like him (gasp!) Therefore he must be a "sell out", wishy-washy, pandering, flip-flopping politician. Its just like music critics panning good music because more than ten people have actually heard the band while giving 5 star ratings to complete shit because they are trying to prove how hip and cool they are.
"When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
Prior to 2002, Kucinich was pro-life. He switched prior to campaigning began in 2003. I'm willing to take him at his word that it was an honest conversion; however, when accusations that "so-and-so changes position according to polls" get tossed around, I feel inclined to bring it up.
Anyway, in a side by side comparison: Abortion
Obama: Strongly Pro-Choice
Kucinich: Somewhat Pro-Choice since 2002 - flipped for the 2004 campaign (likely because the polls said he should) Afirmative Action
Both support it. Gay Rights
Both are pretty gay friendly. Kucinich supports outright marriage, Obama supports civil unions. I'll give it to Kucinich there, but not by much. Flag Desecration
Obama: Voted against a constitutional ban on flag desecration.
Kucinich: Voted in favor of a constitutional ban on flag desecration. (Huh?!?!) Federal funding for health coverage
Both favor more funding
Both oppose Privatizing Social Security, School Vouchers, the Death Penalty, Mandatory Sentencing, Absolute Right to Gun Ownership, Tax Cuts for the Wealthy, Expansion of Free Trade.
It's very amusing to see how some people describe the views and how others would...for example
Tax Cuts for the wealthy or Tax cuts for all Americans
It looks liek I agree with Obama on about 50% of those issues...I think that is fairly accurate applied to all issues. Less than 50% for DK.
I'm loving the in-fighting on here though, keep it up.
Back when I was a young'un in '92 a lot of the alterna-punk rockers I hung out with continually dumped on Pearl Jam for being too mainstream. I tried explaining to them that even though Pearl Jam were popular, they weren't trying to be the new pretty boy pop band they were made out to be. That they were actually pretty honest in their musical approach and that their popularity had more to do with the state of the world and music in general at the time as well as a media push generated by their initial recognition. But my friends never listened. Pearl Jam were sell-outs all. Now I'm hearing what appears to be the same chorus against Obama. Just an observation.
I've never seen Obama as anything but a career politician who is quite well schooled and slick. So I'm not sure who thinks he's a sellout...that would infer I thought highly of him to begin with. Your analogy would work better with Green Day...same as they've always been.
Anyway, in a side by side comparison: Abortion
Obama: Strongly Pro-Choice
Kucinich: Somewhat Pro-Choice since 2002 - flipped for the 2004 campaign (likely because the polls said he should) Afirmative Action
Both support it. Gay Rights
Both are pretty gay friendly. Kucinich supports outright marriage, Obama supports civil unions. I'll give it to Kucinich there, but not by much. Flag Desecration
Obama: Voted against a constitutional ban on flag desecration.
Kucinich: Voted in favor of a constitutional ban on flag desecration. (Huh?!?!) Federal funding for health coverage
Both favor more funding
Both oppose Privatizing Social Security, School Vouchers, the Death Penalty, Mandatory Sentencing, Absolute Right to Gun Ownership, Tax Cuts for the Wealthy, Expansion of Free Trade.
Where they differ the most? Obama supports churches providing some welfare, while Kucinich opposes it (point Kucinich IMO, though not one of my biggest issues). Kucinich wants to cut military spending significantly, Obama doesn't (kind of a wash there for me- it's the use I'm worried about).
Verdict? I'd vote for either of them in the general. In the primary, I'm going with Obama. Why? Well, not to borrow from the Republican Meme Use Handbook, but he's more of a uniter than Kucinich - and that's not a "should-be or shouldn't-be" argument. It's simply a statement of fact.
And, to my original statement - well, it seems Nirvana's the band hocking the most shit now, not Pearl Jam.
I'm not voting on abortion or flag desecration...those seem like trival issues when we look at the big picture....maybe not so much abortion but he's pro choice now and I believe him to be a man of his word. Him changing on that isn't as troubling to me as changing your whole foreign policy based on opinion polls during campaign time. And I don't see Kucinich's ideas as being divisive and I see them as being new and refreshing in a system that could use some serious change.
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
It's very amusing to see how some people describe the views and how others would...for example
Tax Cuts for the wealthy or Tax cuts for all Americans
It looks liek I agree with Obama on about 50% of those issues...I think that is fairly accurate applied to all issues. Less than 50% for DK.
I'm loving the in-fighting on here though, keep it up.
Obama wants to repeal the tax cuts of those making over 200 or 250 thousand dollars - while keeping the tax cuts for the rest. He's also in favor of the estate tax, which is only applicable to inheritance in excess of 2 million dollars. So, you can say that the Bush tax cuts were for all Americans - and you can say that Obama is only opposed to the cuts over what I mentioned above. Therefore, Obama is opposed to tax cuts for the wealthy. I'm pretty sure Kucinich is in the same boat.
I've never seen Obama as anything but a career politician who is quite well schooled and slick. So I'm not sure who thinks he's a sellout...that would infer I thought highly of him to begin with. Your analogy would work better with Green Day...same as they've always been.
Actually, this is pretty much what I'm talking about. Kucinich has been in office far, far longer than Obama - but Obama is the "career politician." Nirvana (who I'm a fan of, by the way) railed against pop culture and our MTV world, yet continued to do videos and press appearances. Pearl Jam railed against pop culture and our MTV world, and ceased doing anything "pop" related for years on end. Yet they were the "careerists."
Think of it this way. If Obama wins the election and serves two terms, he'll have been a national "career politician" for all of twelve years. You can't do the White House gig any quicker than that.
I'm not voting on abortion or flag desecration...those seem like trival issues when we look at the big picture....maybe not so much abortion but he's pro choice now and I believe him to be a man of his word. Him changing on that isn't as troubling to me as changing your whole foreign policy based on opinion polls during campaign time. And I don't see Kucinich's ideas as being divisive and I see them as being new and refreshing in a system that could use some serious change.
I don't see how Obama's foreign policy has changed all that much. Opposed to the war from the beginning - wants to bring the troops home by next year. Sure, some of the details may have changed, but that happens. Can't he also be a man of his word? Or, to flip it around, couldn't Kucinich's sudden switch be explained by the fact that there's no way in hell he'd have ever gotten any attention in the Democratic Primary if he ran as a pro-life candidate?
Actually, this is pretty much what I'm talking about. Kucinich has been in office far, far longer than Obama - but Obama is the "career politician." Nirvana (who I'm a fan of, by the way) railed against pop culture and our MTV world, yet continued to do videos and press appearances. Pearl Jam railed against pop culture and our MTV world, and ceased doing anything "pop" related for years on end. Yet they were the "careerists."
Think of it this way. If Obama wins the election and serves two terms, he'll have been a national "career politician" for all of twelve years. You can't do the White House gig any quicker than that.
Kucinich has been a career public servant...I see a big diff.
I don't see how Obama's foreign policy has changed all that much. Opposed to the war from the beginning - wants to bring the troops home by next year. Sure, some of the details may have changed, but that happens. Can't he also be a man of his word? Or, to flip it around, couldn't Kucinich's sudden switch be explained by the fact that there's no way in hell he'd have ever gotten any attention in the Democratic Primary if he ran as a pro-life candidate?
Going from saying 'we don't leave until the insurgency is defeated' to what he is currently saying is a huge change, imo.
The thing is, I trust Kucinich because of his record of always fighting for the common man and refusing to sway in the face of corporate influence or pressure...that's what I mean when I refer to public servant. I see Obama as a business politician with plenty of ties, who does what he has to, to get where he wants to go.
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
The thing is, I trust Kucinich because of his record of always fighting for the common man and refusing to sway in the face of corporate influence or pressure...that's what I mean when I refer to public servant. I see Obama as a business politician with plenty of ties, who does what he has to, to get where he wants to go.
Great point. .
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
in my opinion (and it don't really count for much and i'm not following this as closely as most of you) ... it really comes down to this ...
kucinich: the idealistic vote - if he became president would really turn the country and the world upside down ... is this a good or bad thing? ... hard to say - it would depend on how much support he has and how bad the establishment wants to railroad him ...
obama: the realist vote - the more versatile and flexible candidate, one who will work the backrooms and the front to try and accomplish things ... in the end probably too compromising to make a huge dent in the way things operate ... just a few cosmetic differences ...
to me - the entire system is faulty ... it doesn't really matter who you have there simply because it is rigged already for special interest ... it will take more than just one person to undo what has evolved ... so, be it any of these guys become president - it's more then just what their stance on issues are ... it's about whether they can disrupt the machine that currently runs the joint ...
Comments
Me? I'd vote for either in the general. So I'll say that while it's possible it's based on polls - it's just as likely that in the last year and a half, roughly eighteen months' worth of events have happened.
But I don't know exactly what he said one year and six months ago. I'll have to go back and find it.
I study communication, and man, this link is top-quality in terms of public relations polish, whether constructed by him or by someone else. That is not to say anything bad about the man himself.
Just check out his "action" words, "illustrating" to us unconscously, how he is the man to defend america:
"As a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Obama has fought to strengthen America's position in the world. Reaching across the aisle, Obama has tackled problems such as preventing the spread of weapons of mass destruction and stopping the genocide in Darfur."
It's very intense, in convincing us beyond our surface awareness. This stuff is brilliant in terms of neurolinguistic programming. And yes, they also do this in public with their speaking, but in a debate, their humanness gets hooked from behind the polish and they react from who they ARE as well as from the image.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
I agree that it is important to have debates so that the public can actually hear what the candidate is saying. The reason the link was provided is because many have stated that he hasn't come out and really made clear what he stands for. Of course you will get extremely well chosen words on a candidate's page, if not any mistake will be amplified by other candidates and the media. It pretty much works that way on any politician's website. I was simply providing a means for people to learn a little bit more about him, rather then saying "well shit, his two minute response on health care didn't really cover every step he will take to fix the problem..."
when you do find it, can you tell me if he ever said something like 'this is how i feel about this now and i will never, ever change my plan--certainly not after reading new intelligence reports, meeting with military advisors, and certainly most absolutely not after listening to the american people, especially the residents of the great state of illinois--the people who voted me in office to act as their representative'.? depending on your answer, i may have to reconsider some things here.
what continually surprises me about media/general public reactions to politicians, is that some seem to forget that politicians are supposed to act on our behalf, well that's one of the two main ways to do it (the other model is to do whatever they want and ignore their constituents' wishes and leave it up to them to vote them back in office, and a somewhat third is a combination of both models). so what is so bad if one reason a decision is made is that the public opinion changed? that's their job, they are politicans that we elect. i can understand though that this could have been forgotten seeing as though the bush administration did not really give a care at what public opinion was. though i suppose they support the *other* model.
cross the river to the eastside
Sure, our elected officials are the peoples laborers, but it's a different dynamic when they are running for election. If they are going to be vague and pat-answer-everyday blah-blah-blah, waiting for the mood that best exemplifies the moment...then they aren't anything better than the next Republican. Clinton and Barack are just such candidates, and that's the fact, ma'am.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
i don't think obama has been too vague for me. i don't think i've known so much about a candidate this far ahead of an election. so i disagree with your facts, not that it even matters.
cross the river to the eastside
He's interchangeable with any moderate in DC today.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Circle comes around each time
I have been a fan of Richardson's for a few years now and I think that he has the perfect background to be a president, but he is not doing himself any favors in these debates. He just isn't good at the soundbyte answer format, but in a one on one interview where he can explain himself, he is very engaging.
I would be comfortable however voting for Obama in the general election if it got to that point.
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
no, i say it b/c a year and a half ago he gave a speech, which is on his own site and dated, as well as another speech in chicago saying we needed to stay and defeat the insurgency and even after that we still have to have some personel there....now that the polls show more ppl want us out that is suddenly what he's saying, no more 'notice i said reduce, not withdrawl'
it just seems odd to me, is all...if kucinich said it i would think the same, but he has been consistent from the first day
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
all he had to do was read the intel reports from before the war started to get the exact same info!!!
again, it seems a bit odd the timing that he used to be about 'notice i said reduce, not withdrawl' and now that public opinion has changed so has he...you can say he's just doing what the public wants, to me it seems he's just saying what the public wants
since you know so much about him, more than any other candidate in history, feel free to reply in my other obama thread, if you already haven't
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
he wasn't a u.s. senator before the war started. would he have had the access to reports then? i'm comfortable with what he says when he says it and you're not. i don't see a point in arguing about it because i can see it going nowhere. because it hasn't all along.
i didn't say i knew more about him than any other candidate in history. i said this was the first time [for me] that i know so much about a candidate so early in the election process. and it's stuff like that that makes me feel additional responses are a futile effort on my behalf.
cross the river to the eastside
He was not able to vote against Bush's strike into Iraq but he opposed it before opposition to the war was "popular".
His vote last week against further funding made me proud.
I had voiced my doubts about Obama after hearing him say that, with Iran, "no options are off the table", and that statement made me nervous, but I now retract my nervousness, because all the other candidates make me twice as nervous.
Yes, I love what Dennis Kucinich has to say, but no, I don't believe Kucinich will be President any time soon. I love his ideals, but this country and this world are not ready for them.
Knowing what we all know, by now, about how the world works, how nukes work, how peacekeeping and - yes - how wars work, the country is not ready for a Kucinich.
Obama at least can keep his head clear, he can make his statements very clear, and he knows how to compromise and reach a goal towards the best solution, even moving across party lines when the need arises.
When it comes to Iran, he's right. No president should keep all options off the table, especially if he's got the skills to use his smarter options, and not his tougher ones.
Obama for President.
He's got my vote. And I've been a Republican for 20 years +. I just registered Democrat last month so that I can vote for the man I believe will do our country the least amount of harm, and do our country the greatest amount of good.
Peaceful, diplomatic solutions are, without question, the best choice in any situation, but where do you draw the line. Lets look at some very real, possibilities and hypotheticals. Lets suppose Iran becomes nuclearly viable. Lets suppose they start aiming those weapons at various nations and making wild threats. Suppose they fire off a couple of those weapons. Just when does a world leader, however unfortunate it may be, HAVE to say enough is enough something MUST be done? When does doing nothing become the truly "Dumb" thing.
Please do not get me wrong. i in no way advocate preemptive, preventative war with Iran (please show me where Obama says that he does). None of these hypotheticals have happened, hopefully they never will. Right now i trust that they won't. But, they are not out of the range of possibility. Where do you draw the line? Tough questions that any prospective world leader has to deal with.
but he would have access when he was senator, right? or are you saying he just now found out the intel said these things would happen?
well, however you worded it, i started the thread b/c so many ppl are behind him and i would like to know why...if someone started a 'why should i vote for dennis kucinich??' thread i'd have no problems explaining why and pointing them to his stances that i like...but it seems like it's pulling teeth to get that out of an obama supporter
if you don't want to say why you back him, fine
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
Anyway, in a side by side comparison:
Abortion
Obama: Strongly Pro-Choice
Kucinich: Somewhat Pro-Choice since 2002 - flipped for the 2004 campaign (likely because the polls said he should)
Afirmative Action
Both support it.
Gay Rights
Both are pretty gay friendly. Kucinich supports outright marriage, Obama supports civil unions. I'll give it to Kucinich there, but not by much.
Flag Desecration
Obama: Voted against a constitutional ban on flag desecration.
Kucinich: Voted in favor of a constitutional ban on flag desecration. (Huh?!?!)
Federal funding for health coverage
Both favor more funding
Both oppose Privatizing Social Security, School Vouchers, the Death Penalty, Mandatory Sentencing, Absolute Right to Gun Ownership, Tax Cuts for the Wealthy, Expansion of Free Trade.
Where they differ the most? Obama supports churches providing some welfare, while Kucinich opposes it (point Kucinich IMO, though not one of my biggest issues). Kucinich wants to cut military spending significantly, Obama doesn't (kind of a wash there for me- it's the use I'm worried about).
Verdict? I'd vote for either of them in the general. In the primary, I'm going with Obama. Why? Well, not to borrow from the Republican Meme Use Handbook, but he's more of a uniter than Kucinich - and that's not a "should-be or shouldn't-be" argument. It's simply a statement of fact.
And, to my original statement - well, it seems Nirvana's the band hocking the most shit now, not Pearl Jam.
how will the world know when they are ready for him if ppl are too afraid vote for him?
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
interesting. and surprising.
i already said i'm comfortable with what obama says when he says it about iraq. this is the stuff i am not willing to go back and forth on with you. i simply do not have the time or patience.
but you want me to say why i back him, fine:
ultimately if you really want to know, read the audacity of hope. much of what he says really inspired me. there's too much in there to type about here--i love his focus on education (especially college edu), health care (required cov for children, others have access to affordable care), and the need for foreign policy (!). i love that he keeps all options on tables regarding complex issues like war--i don't trust those who say otherwise. he also addresses some underlying issues that affect all the other issues--race and economic class (doesn't address gender as much as the others, but i can help him with that). too often candidates don't acknowlege those issues.
also, the way he is as a person does matter to me. i'm not ashamed to say i like his charisma. you know why? he gets people to work with him! he has worked with all sorts of other politicians to actually accomplish things. also, i think he is *realistic*. and that has never been more important to me than now. i feel there are some serious things that need to be addressed and fixed in this country and we need a realistic leader, which i think he is both--realistic and a leader. i love that he is younger too. he seems to be very smart, realistic, and can work with people to make things happen. you can't get stuff done from the inside if you are too extreme and don't work with a broad base. change happens in stages.
finally one of the biggest reasons i like him is that he has ALWAYS been strongly pro-choice.
here is an great example of why i like obama (illustrating some qualities important to me):
"I believe we must work together to reduce the number of unintended pregnancies. I support legislation to expand access to contraception, health information, and preventative services to help reduce unintended pregnancies. That is why I co-sponsored the Prevention First Act of 2007, which will increase funding for family planning and comprehensive sex education that teaches both abstinence and safe sex methods. It will also end insurance discrimination against contraception, improve awareness about emergency contraception, and provide compassionate assistance to rape victims.
cross the river to the eastside
i love this post so much i'd like to marry it. or at least buy it a promise ring.
cross the river to the eastside
i think this assessment just may be spot on. Obama is a popular guy, and people like him (gasp!) Therefore he must be a "sell out", wishy-washy, pandering, flip-flopping politician. Its just like music critics panning good music because more than ten people have actually heard the band while giving 5 star ratings to complete shit because they are trying to prove how hip and cool they are.
It's very amusing to see how some people describe the views and how others would...for example
Tax Cuts for the wealthy or Tax cuts for all Americans
It looks liek I agree with Obama on about 50% of those issues...I think that is fairly accurate applied to all issues. Less than 50% for DK.
I'm loving the in-fighting on here though, keep it up.
I've never seen Obama as anything but a career politician who is quite well schooled and slick. So I'm not sure who thinks he's a sellout...that would infer I thought highly of him to begin with. Your analogy would work better with Green Day...same as they've always been.
I'm not voting on abortion or flag desecration...those seem like trival issues when we look at the big picture....maybe not so much abortion but he's pro choice now and I believe him to be a man of his word. Him changing on that isn't as troubling to me as changing your whole foreign policy based on opinion polls during campaign time. And I don't see Kucinich's ideas as being divisive and I see them as being new and refreshing in a system that could use some serious change.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Think of it this way. If Obama wins the election and serves two terms, he'll have been a national "career politician" for all of twelve years. You can't do the White House gig any quicker than that.
I don't see how Obama's foreign policy has changed all that much. Opposed to the war from the beginning - wants to bring the troops home by next year. Sure, some of the details may have changed, but that happens. Can't he also be a man of his word? Or, to flip it around, couldn't Kucinich's sudden switch be explained by the fact that there's no way in hell he'd have ever gotten any attention in the Democratic Primary if he ran as a pro-life candidate?
Kucinich has been a career public servant...I see a big diff.
Going from saying 'we don't leave until the insurgency is defeated' to what he is currently saying is a huge change, imo.
The thing is, I trust Kucinich because of his record of always fighting for the common man and refusing to sway in the face of corporate influence or pressure...that's what I mean when I refer to public servant. I see Obama as a business politician with plenty of ties, who does what he has to, to get where he wants to go.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
kucinich: the idealistic vote - if he became president would really turn the country and the world upside down ... is this a good or bad thing? ... hard to say - it would depend on how much support he has and how bad the establishment wants to railroad him ...
obama: the realist vote - the more versatile and flexible candidate, one who will work the backrooms and the front to try and accomplish things ... in the end probably too compromising to make a huge dent in the way things operate ... just a few cosmetic differences ...
to me - the entire system is faulty ... it doesn't really matter who you have there simply because it is rigged already for special interest ... it will take more than just one person to undo what has evolved ... so, be it any of these guys become president - it's more then just what their stance on issues are ... it's about whether they can disrupt the machine that currently runs the joint ...