Your Opionion of Barack Obama

RainDog

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Kucinich has been a career public servant...I see a big diff.

Fair enough, but you seem to be cutting the man an enormous amount of slack - and the same could just as easily be said of just about any politician by one of his or her supporters. And with just as much evidence.

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Going from saying 'we don't leave until the insurgency is defeated' to what he is currently saying is a huge change, imo.

I believe what you're refering to is something he said back in 2004. He also said in the same breath that he has no way of knowing what the situation would look like in six months to a year. It's been almost three years - so I don't see how this "change" is some kind of major flip. Sure he plays it safe - maybe too safe in some circumstances - but I don't see it as the huge change you do.

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

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.

Again, Obama's raised upward of $25 million without taking federal lobbyist or political action committee money ($7 million from small internet donars alone), yet he's the "business politician with plenty of ties." One hundred thousand people donated - more individual donars than anyone else, if I'm not mistaken - yet he's the candidate of the elite.

VictoryGin

RainDog wrote:

Again, Obama's raised upward of $25 million without taking federal lobbyist or political action committee money ($7 million from small internet donars alone), yet he's the "business politician with plenty of ties." One hundred thousand people donated - more individual donars than anyone else, if I'm not mistaken - yet he's the candidate of the elite.

right. twice as many as clinton, and she wasn't solely individuals i believe.

terrible grammar. i think clinton had 50,000 donors, some of which were not individuals. correct me if i'm wrong.

Abookamongstthemany

RainDog wrote:

Fair enough, but you seem to be cutting the man an enormous amount of slack - and the same could just as easily be said of just about any politician by one of his or her supporters. And with just as much evidence.

How am I cutting him slack?

RainDog wrote:

Again, Obama's raised upward of $25 million without taking federal lobbyist or political action committee money ($7 million from small internet donars alone), yet he's the "business politician with plenty of ties." One hundred thousand people donated - more individual donars than anyone else, if I'm not mistaken - yet he's the candidate of the elite.

http://opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.asp?id=N00009638&cycle=2008

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/05/barack-obama/

angelica

polaris wrote:

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 ...

If one person has the inner vision to actually lead, and to inspire the country to do their part in making the change, rather than apathetically passing the buck--if he can reconnect with the hope that exists deep inside individuals across the country, by connecting them to their ideals, and the ideals the country, itself, is founded on, it's amazing what can be accomplished. This is a far cry from those who have spent 8 years leading by hooking the unconscious fears of America's citizens. And after watching the Republican debate last night, it's pretty certain that's a group who plan for more fear-hooking whether from perceived necessity, or for more heinous, self-serving purposes.

To inspire humans with hope and inspiration appears to me to be Kucinich's focus and his intention. He has indicated as much in numerous interviews. To get the backing of the people makes it far more than one person.

VictoryGin

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

http://opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.asp?id=N00009638&cycle=2008

i don't understand the difference between that link above and this:
http://opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.asp?id=N00009638&cycle=2008

this bottom one seems to indicate all individual contributions--like kucinich's chart.

edit: i think i get it. what raindog said is still correct. he hasn't taken PAC money, the donations in the other opensecrets link aren't PACs or fed lobbyists. i'm tired.

Abookamongstthemany

VictoryGin wrote:

i don't understand the difference between that link above and this:
http://opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.asp?id=N00009638&cycle=2008

Maybe this will clear it up.

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=12837


A recent editorial in The Chicago Sun-Times, published on May 14, attempted to defile an essay I wrote in these pages [Dissident Voice] about Barack Obama’s fundraising channels and his ties to corporate America. The Sun-Times piece, written by former Clinton White House counsel Abner J. Mikva, challenged my claim that Barack isn’t taking on the pay-to-play politics we are all so used to in Washington. Instead Mikva asserted that the ethically minded Obama is “incorruptible”.


True, Obama has decided to not accept PAC money for his presidential bid, but that doesn’t mean the Illinois senator isn’t packing in tons of cash from the corporate sector (more on that shortly). True also that Obama’s campaign, like Howard Dean’s of 2004, is pocketing many small online donations at an average of $25 a pop. However, small donations from the Democratic grassroots do not mean he doesn’t also have his paws in the corporate cookie jar.



How can this be if companies cannot directly hand over cash to candidates for national office? Well, their employees can donate up to $2,300 per person. In my article I noted that Obama has raised money from several corporations, including Exelon, UBS, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, along with tobacco rich law firm Kirkland & Ellis. Of course there are others that have fattened the accounts of Obama for president that I didn’t mention, such as; Time Warner, Viacom, Williams & Connolly, Level 3 Communications, Credit Suisse Securities, Lehman Brothers and Ariel Capital.



So how can one assume that employee donations are representative of the companies they list on their donor forms? As OpenSecrets.org, a not-for-profit website dedicated to revealing the money trails of Washington, asserts, “Because of contribution limits, organizations that bundle together many individual contributions are often among the top donors to presidential candidates. These contributions can come from the organization’s members or employees (and their families).”



Hence why UBS and Exelon are on the top of Obama’s contributor list. Even so, are the millions of dollars donated by employers of these companies actually influencing Barack Obama’s positions?



Abner J. Mikva doesn’t think so. But you may connect the dots as you see fit.



Fact: Barack Obama believes nuclear power is “green” and told the Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works, of which Barack is a member, that Congress should allow “nuclear power to remain on the table for consideration”. Employees of Exelon, which is the nation’s largest nuclear power plant operator, have donated over $159,000 to Obama’s presidential campaign as of March 31, 2007. That amount has likely increased since the first public tallying of campaign contributions two months ago.



Fact: Obama, in one of his earliest Senate votes, departed with his own party and voted for class action “reform” legislation. The bill, as Ken Silverstein wrote for Harper’s, was “lobbied for aggressively by financial firms, which constitute Obama’s second biggest single bloc of donors.” An amendment to the legislation, which the senator opposed, would have capped credit card interest rates at 30%. Obama, unfortunately, didn’t see a need for any cap on such predatory lending.



Fact: Obama may not allow PACs to donate directly to his presidential campaign, but the young senator started a PAC of his own, which has donated to other Democratic Party members, all of whom are moderates, and several are even staunch conservatives like Sen. Joe Lieberman (Obama backed Lieberman over Ned Lamont). Obama’s leadership PAC has been loaded with the help of credit card lobbyist Jeffrey Peck (who, subsequently, opposes a cap on credit card interests) and big oil proponent Rich Tarplin.



By pointing out these truths I am not implying that Obama is the most corporate entrenched candidate running for the presidency. That award may indeed go to Sen. Hillary Clinton. Nevertheless, I think it is pertinent for voters to know where candidates stand on important issues as well as what may have influenced these positions.



Aside from the purported corporate pressure on Obama’s campaign, there are other issues we should all consider before jumping on the Obama express — such as his lopsided support for Israel and his all-options-on-the-table approach to dealing with Iran’s nuclear ambitions.



Sen. Obama may not completely support the war in Iraq, but he has yet to put forward an agenda for the region that offers a critical departure from the failed Bush doctrine. On the Middle East, Obama is an avid hawk. On social movements in South America Obama has argued that citizens there should not follow left-leaning populists like Hugo Chavez, and advocates in his book The Audacity of Hope, that these poor nations should embrace free-market capitalism instead.



By and large Barack Obama is a mainstream Democratic candidate that is exciting many due to his personal, charismatic zeal. There is no question that Obama is a gifted politician, and his youth only adds to the mystique that he’s offering an alternative to business as usual in Washington.



Despite all of these claims, I still have to depart from Abner J. Mikva’s editorial in The Chicago Sun-Times, which insists Obama can’t be influenced. I connect the dots differently than Mikva, and see Sen. Barack Obama as just another ineffectual politician, who is more concerned with being elected than with standing by the ideals of his constituents.





Joshua Frank is co-editor of Dissident Voice and author of Left Out! How Liberals Helped Reelect George W. Bush (Common Courage Press, 2005), and along with Jeffrey St. Clair, the editor of the forthcoming Red State Rebels, to be published by AK Press in March 2008.

polaris

angelica wrote:

If one person has the inner vision to actually lead, and to inspire the country to do their part in making the change, rather than apathetically passing the buck--if he can reconnect with the hope that exists deep inside individuals across the country, by connecting them to their ideals, and the ideals the country, itself, is founded on, it's amazing what can be accomplished. This is a far cry from those who have spent 8 years leading by hooking the unconscious fears of America's citizens. And after watching the Republican debate last night, it's pretty certain that's a group who plan for more fear-hooking whether from perceived necessity, or for more heinous, self-serving purposes.

To inspire humans with hope and inspiration appears to me to be Kucinich's focus and his intention. He has indicated as much in numerous interviews. To get the backing of the people makes it far more than one person.

i don't doubt kucinich's integrity ... nor obama's ... my point is simply that the game they have decided to play is rigged already ... it is rigged for the establishment so that no matter who gets named president of the united states - the rules have already been laid out in favour of special interest ...

so, if kucinich became president - he will be railroaded into an ineffectiveness beyond accountability ... while if obama gets elected - he will only be able to muster a few changes without disrupting the forces ...

it's not necessarily the people running ... its the system itself ...

i truly believe that for true positive change to occur - the system has to be blown up ... transparency becomes the norm ...

VictoryGin

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Maybe this will clear it up.

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=12837

no. i figured it out and edited my post thanks. what raindog said is still correct. obama's donations were from individuals, not PACs or fed lobbyists. were some employees' contributions bundled? yeah perhaps. i still like obama and i still think many zmag articles, like the one above, are misleading pieces of crap.

Abookamongstthemany

VictoryGin wrote:

no. i figured it out and edited my post thanks. what raindog said is still correct. obama's donations were from individuals, not PACs or fed lobbyists. were some employees' contributions bundled? yeah perhaps. i still like obama and i still think many zmag articles, like the one above, are misleading pieces of crap.

what about it was misleading?

angelica

polaris wrote:

i don't doubt kucinich's integrity ... nor obama's ... my point is simply that the game they have decided to play is rigged already ... it is rigged for the establishment so that no matter who gets named president of the united states - the rules have already been laid out in favour of special interest ...

so, if kucinich became president - he will be railroaded into an ineffectiveness beyond accountability ... while if obama gets elected - he will only be able to muster a few changes without disrupting the forces ...

it's not necessarily the people running ... its the system itself ...

i truly believe that for true positive change to occur - the system has to be blown up ... transparency becomes the norm ...

I understand what you're saying polaris--that you trust Kucinich's integrity, but not the game.

What I'm saying is that it's not rigged. It's rigged based on what has come before. When people realize we don't have to choose based on the past, but rather that we can connect with hope in the now, we'll begin to create responsibly, rather than based on prior programming. When's the last time there was a leader whose focus was on peace and changing the old patterns that did not work--and who meant it with integrity, rather than as a political move? That's why Kucinich gets applause for basically anything he says in public--because he's tapping something that is very different but that is there within each American. A majority IS the status quo, and if he were able to hook the hope and the the high ideals of the majority, then that would change everything--particularly compared to the pervasive fear that's been hooked and nurtured these past years. This Kucinich vision may seem like an impossibility, and that's an illusion of our programming. It's entirely possible, whether it will happen now, or in 20 or 50 years.

In order to hook people, all you need to do is appeal to their unconscious. There's not an American alive who hasn't been programmed with America's great ideals and the hope and belief in a better and new innovative way. He's not going against the grain at all. Although he doesn't control the outcome or the constraints of time, including when the public is ready for such a message.

RainDog

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

How am I cutting him slack?

By not acknowledging his policy changes while pointing at others.

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

http://opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.asp?id=N00009638&cycle=2008

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/05/barack-obama/

All that tells me is that Obama raised more money than Kucinich - and Kucinich's list isn't quite guilt free either.

HailHailVitalogy

I'm voting for him.

People who don't like him because of his book are ignorant. He released this book to show us Americans that he is just like all of us, he's the everyday guy.

I agree with what he stands for more than any other candidate. He's just so chill and doesn't have a dick up his ass from other government people like Dubyah does.

Abookamongstthemany

RainDog wrote:

By not acknowledging his policy changes while pointing at others.

I did acknowledge them! I said they were trival issues that I'm not deciding my vote on also.

polaris

angelica wrote:

I understand what you're saying polaris--that you trust Kucinich's integrity, but not the game.

What I'm saying is that it's not rigged. It's rigged based on what has come before. When people realize we don't have to choose based on the past, but rather that we can connect with hope in the now, we'll begin to create responsibly, rather than based on prior programming. When's the last time there was a leader whose focus was on peace and changing the old patterns that did not work--and who meant it with integrity, rather than as a political move? That's why Kucinich gets applause for basically anything he says in public--because he's tapping something that is very different but that is there within each American. A majority IS the status quo, and if he were able to hook the hope and the the high ideals of the majority, then that would change everything--particularly compared to the pervasive fear that's been hooked and nurtured these past years. This Kucinich vision may seem like an impossibility, and that's an illusion of our programming. It's entirely possible, whether it will happen now, or in 20 or 50 years.

In order to hook people, all you need to do is appeal to their unconscious. There's not an American alive who hasn't been programmed with America's great ideals and the hope and belief in a better and new innovative way. He's not going against the grain at all. Although he doesn't control the outcome or the constraints of time, including when the public is ready for such a message.

ahh ... but to me it is rigged ... not only does kucinich need to appeal to the masses with his message but he needs willing support within this corporation ... his vps (congressmen and senators), directors (house of representatives), etc... all need to be walking a similar path ... meanwhile every single employee needs to respond to their "donors" because it is those "donors" that put them there ... and who are these "donors" for the most part? ... other corporations ... build in the lobbyists that are paid by corporations and the corporately owned media outlets and the whole system is corrupt ...

there are but 2 parties that are "allowed" to run ... if ross perot wasn't super rich - he wouldn't be able to get on the tv debates ... in the end - if money dictates success - the system is flawed ... it's not about who can lead and who can foster change ... it's about who can raise an adequate amount of money while being able to appease those that truly decide policy ...

if the war in iraq has taught me one thing - it is that the will and desires of the populace can be easily manipulated and in turn ignored ...

it's all about targeting where the real problem is ... it's not in the people running - it's the contest they are all competing for ...

cincybearcat

RainDog wrote:

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.

Meaning his is opposed to tax cuts that benefit all Americans. That's what I said. It is helping to create and sustain the class warfare...but oh well. It's easy money to grab because tons of people hate other successful people and love to see them pick up the tab.

I'm not sure why that is fair. They're already paying a higher percentage. Where's Forbes when you need him?

angelica

polaris wrote:

ahh ... but to me it is rigged ... not only does kucinich need to appeal to the masses with his message but he needs willing support within this corporation ... his vps (congressmen and senators), directors (house of representatives), etc... all need to be walking a similar path ... meanwhile every single employee needs to respond to their "donors" because it is those "donors" that put them there ... and who are these "donors" for the most part? ... other corporations ... build in the lobbyists that are paid by corporations and the corporately owned media outlets and the whole system is corrupt ...

there are but 2 parties that are "allowed" to run ... if ross perot wasn't super rich - he wouldn't be able to get on the tv debates ... in the end - if money dictates success - the system is flawed ... it's not about who can lead and who can foster change ... it's about who can raise an adequate amount of money while being able to appease those that truly decide policy ...

if the war in iraq has taught me one thing - it is that the will and desires of the populace can be easily manipulated and in turn ignored ...

it's all about targeting where the real problem is ... it's not in the people running - it's the contest they are all competing for ...

While I understand this is a valid view, it's also the view based on the programming I speak of and I don't mean in just you--but in everyone. When such advanced ideas like the ones Kucinich holds begin to filter into mainstream (and they come from far and wide, not just him) people will realize the "rigged" aspects are limits they hold in their minds. And we can always change our minds. When we change our minds, we can also change the structures--political and otherwise--that are not working for the good of all, or the whole country.

I realize these are ideas that need to filter in and take root with people, and that takes time. I don't believe it's an inherent flaw in the system that can't be changed, though. I see that people are waking up slowly and surely. When enough people realize the self-defeating nature of self-ishness, all, including business/corporation people will evolve. 'Cause when we see the actual consequences of self-interests at the expense of the whole, there is NO choice.

You may view the "rigged" aspects as something we will eventually evolve away from, too. I'm pointing to the seeds we can begin to plant now. There is no time like the present. I'm not saying vote for the guy. I don't even know if I would. I see the potency in the idea of looking to a better way, and to be actively creating it, TODAY.

Abookamongstthemany

angelica wrote:

While I understand this is a valid view, it's also the view based on the programming I speak of and I don't mean in just you--but in everyone. When such advanced ideas like the ones Kucinich holds begin to filter into mainstream (and they come from far and wide, not just him) people will realize the "rigged" aspects are limits they hold in their minds. And we can always change our minds. When we change our minds, we can also change the structures--political and otherwise--that are not working for the good of all, or the whole country.

I realize these are ideas that need to filter in and take root with people, and that takes time. I don't believe it's an inherent flaw in the system that can't be changed, though. I see that people are waking up slowly and surely. When enough people realize the self-defeating nature of self-ishness, all, including business/corporation people will evolve. 'Cause when we see the actual consequences of self-interests at the expense of the whole, there is NO choice.

You may view the "rigged" aspects as something we will eventually evolve away from, too. I'm pointing to the seeds we can begin to plant now. There is no time like the present. I'm not saying vote for the guy. I don't even know if I would. I see the potency in the idea of looking to a better way, and to be actively creating it, TODAY.

"We often leave the present moment and get into that planning frame of mind when we’re aware on some level of the uncertainty of tomorrow. We think that by planning out the events of tomorrow, the day after, and so forth, that we have control over how our life unfolds. The truth is, you really ever only know what you have to do and can do right now.

Right here and right now is all there is. You only know the actions you have to take right now. You know nothing about the actions you will have to take tomorrow, because tomorrow isn’t even born yet. Right now, tomorrow is a figment of your imagination. Right now, tomorrow is still in your mind. It's not in front of you." - Kidest Mengistu

angelica

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

"We often leave the present moment and get into that planning frame of mind when we’re aware on some level of the uncertainty of tomorrow. We think that by planning out the events of tomorrow, the day after, and so forth, that we have control over how our life unfolds. The truth is, you really ever only know what you have to do and can do right now.

Right here and right now is all there is. You only know the actions you have to take right now. You know nothing about the actions you will have to take tomorrow, because tomorrow isn’t even born yet. Right now, tomorrow is a figment of your imagination. Right now, tomorrow is still in your mind. It's not in front of you." - Kidest Mengistu

Absolutely. And all the "imaginary" plans of the non-existent but imagined non-real future are illusions. They are the product of the ego, thinking it can control life, because it is too uncertain to accept life as is.

The vast majority of people live in this place of distorted planning. And they create all kinds of stressors that don't exist, except for the falsity of ego that most people wrongly take as being truth and nature, herself. It is from this position of ego, that we look to others with even bigger egos to lead us, rather than looking to see truth.

It's okay, though--"there's nothing more powerful than an idea whose time has come". I have complete trust that everything is perfect and as it should be.

VictoryGin

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

what about it was misleading?

sorry. i regret typing that because i can't and don't want to elaborate too much because of my past experiences debating similar articles from zmag. it primarily has to do with the whole lieberman/lamont thing (misleading) and iraq war (incorrect, he did introduce plans like the de-escalation act). i've talked about these things in the past.

i just feel this is useless in ways. if the election was today i'd vote for obama. others wouldn't. it seems like others find any justification (that i may find flawed) not to vote for obama because they like their person. and nothing i can say would change that. i have my justifications for my choice (that some may find flawed), others have theirs for their choices.

Abookamongstthemany

VictoryGin wrote:

sorry. i regret typing that because i can't and don't want to elaborate too much because of my past experiences debating similar articles from zmag. it primarily has to do with the whole lieberman/lamont thing (misleading) and iraq war (incorrect, he did introduce plans like the de-escalation act). i've talked about these things in the past.

I was mainly asking about the campaign contribution parts because that's what we were discussing. I guess it can be debated how conservative Lieberman is.

VictoryGin wrote:

i just feel this is useless in ways. if the election was today i'd vote for obama. others wouldn't. it seems like others find any justification (that i may find flawed) not to vote for obama because they like their person. and nothing i can say would change that. i have my justifications for my choice (that some may find flawed), others have theirs for their choices.

I understand that you back him and I hate to debate this with some of you because I consider you to be true friends of mine. But so many people jump on these bandwagons without ever being presented the whole picture. So, I'm going do what I have to show both sides of Obama. If what I post doesn't change your vote or anyone's that is fine. But I do think people should be fully informed of who and what they are standing behind.