On a completely irrational and emotional level, I'm just going to feel so much better if he gets the job. Just having an intelligent, compassionate human being answering questions from the press is going to be a big step forward. I think this will translate around the world, too. They're going to think, "Those crazy *** that 'elected' Bush 2 times turned around and voted HIM in? Maybe they're not so bad after all". I refuse to accept defeat yet. I still have hope.
Sigh. Republican, Democrat, they're all the same, blah blah blah. That's too damn cynical for me. I have hope. Obama is the first transformative presidential candidate since Reagan [whom I did not support], and I think he can bring a spiritual shift to this country that it sorely needs. I don't mean in the religious sense. I mean it won't feel as dark as it has the last seven and a half years. Hope.
I thought all the "there's not a dimes worth of difference" diehards had been crushed by the reality of the last seven years. I guess some survived.
None of the establishment stooges who run the two political parties want real change. They merely sell the appearance of change to the credulous who make up the majority of the US electorate.
Part of the Big Lie that perpetuates the system is that "my party is different from your party". Congress had a chance since 2006 to show that Democrats aren't the willing butt-monkeys of GW Bush. Congress has decided to keep playing Bush's tune.
Frankly, I think that's defeatist BS. It's like saying all Aspies are this or that. Both major political parties have good and not-so-good people in them. In my opinion, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, Joe Biden, Chris Todd, John Edwards, Dennis Kucinich and Nancy Pelosi [to give examples] are all real people who believe in the ability of public service to help people.
Right now the Democratic majority in Congress is too slim to do much about Bush's policies. We need Obama at the top and some more in the seats to turn this dictatorship back into the Republic it once was.
I particularly enjoyed this one:
"It is the nature of the repuglican party to attract bigoted, small minded supporters. This party has been on the wrong side of history for the last two hundred years. history has shown that conservatives opposed emancipation, opposed women's right to vote, opposed civil rights, opposed child labor laws, opposed environmental protection laws, the list goes on. They have been and continue to be a party of narrow minded, bigoted individuals who never are able to see past their own failings and prejudices. They are a party of exclusion. Period. That is why history has always proven them to be wrong."
Did anyone read yesterday's New York Times?
Following the regular news lately (all news really). They are reporting the "news story" of Obama's "refinement" recently that exactly how many months it will take to end the war depends on "listening to what the commanders on the ground tell him as the commander in chief". The news reports the headline as "Obama flip flop?" (The answer is no.) Anyone that has actually listened to more than a sound byte of Obama would know that he has been saying the same things for a long time on Iraq. Here is yesterdays Op-ed written by Obama.
I thought it was good.
Op-Ed Contributor
By BARACK OBAMA
Published: July 14, 2008
CHICAGO — The call by Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki for a timetable for the removal of American troops from Iraq presents an enormous opportunity. We should seize this moment to begin the phased redeployment of combat troops that I have long advocated, and that is needed for long-term success in Iraq and the security interests of the United States.
The differences on Iraq in this campaign are deep. Unlike Senator John McCain, I opposed the war in Iraq before it began, and would end it as president. I believed it was a grave mistake to allow ourselves to be distracted from the fight against Al Qaeda and the Taliban by invading a country that posed no imminent threat and had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. Since then, more than 4,000 Americans have died and we have spent nearly $1 trillion. Our military is overstretched. Nearly every threat we face — from Afghanistan to Al Qaeda to Iran has grown.
In the 18 months since President Bush announced the surge, our troops have performed heroically in bringing down the level of violence. New tactics have protected the Iraqi population, and the Sunni tribes have rejected Al Qaeda — greatly weakening its effectiveness.
But the same factors that led me to oppose the surge still hold true. The strain on our military has grown, the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated and we’ve spent nearly $200 billion more in Iraq than we had budgeted. Iraq’s leaders have failed to invest tens of billions of dollars in oil revenues in rebuilding their own country, and they have not reached the political accommodation that was the stated purpose of the surge.
The good news is that Iraq’s leaders want to take responsibility for their country by negotiating a timetable for the removal of American troops. Meanwhile, Lt. Gen. James Dubik, the American officer in charge of training Iraq’s security forces, estimates that the Iraqi Army and police will be ready to assume responsibility for security in 2009.
Only by redeploying our troops can we press the Iraqis to reach comprehensive political accommodation and achieve a successful transition to Iraqis’ taking responsibility for the security and stability of their country. Instead of seizing the moment and encouraging Iraqis to step up, the Bush administration and Senator McCain are refusing to embrace this transition — despite their previous commitments to respect the will of Iraq’s sovereign government. They call any timetable for the removal of American troops “surrender,” even though we would be turning Iraq over to a sovereign Iraqi government.
But this is not a strategy for success — it is a strategy for staying that runs contrary to the will of the Iraqi people, the American people and the security interests of the United States. That is why, on my first day in office, I would give the military a new mission: ending this war.
As I’ve said many times, we must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in. We can safely redeploy our combat brigades at a pace that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 — two years from now, and more than seven years after the war began. After this redeployment, a residual force in Iraq would perform limited missions: going after any remnants of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, protecting American service members and, so long as the Iraqis make political progress, training Iraqi security forces. That would not be a precipitous withdrawal.
In carrying out this strategy, we would inevitably need to make tactical adjustments. As I have often said, I would consult with commanders on the ground and the Iraqi government to ensure that our troops were redeployed safely, and our interests protected. We would move them from secure areas first and volatile areas later. We would pursue a diplomatic offensive with every nation in the region on behalf of Iraq’s stability, and commit $2 billion to a new international effort to support Iraq’s refugees.
Ending the war is essential to meeting our broader strategic goals, starting in Afghanistan and Pakistan, where the Taliban is resurgent and Al Qaeda has a safe haven. Iraq is not the central front in the war on terrorism, and it never has been. As Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, recently pointed out, we won’t have sufficient resources to finish the job in Afghanistan until we reduce our commitment to Iraq.
As president, I would pursue a new strategy, and begin by providing at least two additional combat brigades to support our effort in Afghanistan. We need more troops, more helicopters, better intelligence-gathering and more nonmilitary assistance to accomplish the mission there. I would not hold our military, our resources and our foreign policy hostage to a misguided desire to maintain permanent bases in Iraq.
In this campaign, there are honest differences over Iraq, and we should discuss them with the thoroughness they deserve. Unlike Senator McCain, I would make it absolutely clear that we seek no presence in Iraq similar to our permanent bases in South Korea, and would redeploy our troops out of Iraq and focus on the broader security challenges that we face. But for far too long, those responsible for the greatest strategic blunder in the recent history of American foreign policy have ignored useful debate in favor of making false charges about flip-flops and surrender.
It’s not going to work this time. It’s time to end this war.
Barack Obama, a United States senator from Illinois, is the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee.
I didn't write that comment. I just said I enjoyed the post. Mainly because I have no respect for the Republican Party or for the people who are stupid enough to want to defend them. They're the scum of the earth. So you found a fault in that person's post, well-whoopee-fucken-doo. How many mistakes has that buffoon George W Bush made? But did that turn you off the Republicans? I bet not. You were probably too busy looking for the faults of those who criticised him.
If you're not part of your country’s rich and you think the republican’s are representing your best interests then you're a moron who deserves everything he gets.
Christ! Did the **** Republican Party send tax payer funded soldiers over to Iraq to secure the interests of the vast majority of Americans? NO! The tax payer foots the bill and the oil companies, whose interests the Republican Party are really looking after, make all the profit. And you want to defend those assholes?
*** Bush. *** the Republican Party and *** McCain. Obama is gonna hand him his *** in November.
Thanks.
I also enjoyed this one from The West Wing:
"Liberals got women the right to vote. Liberals got African-Americans the right to vote. Liberals created Social Security and lifted millions of elderly people out of poverty. Liberals ended segregation. Liberals passed the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act. Liberals created Medicare. Liberals passed the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act.
What did Conservatives do? They opposed them on every one of those things – every one. So when you try to hurl that label at my feet, ‘Liberal,’ as if it were something to be ashamed of, something dirty, something to run away from, it won’t work, Senator, because I will pick up that label and I will wear it as a badge of honor."
Matt Santos, a fictional congressman (and presdiential candidate) on the West Wing.
I agree with the fictional Matt Santos quote about liberalism and I agree that the Republican Party has been on the wrong side of just about everything since slavery, but as far as Obama "handing McCain his *** in November", I don't buy it. I hope and believe Obama will win, but it's going to be close and it's going to be against a decent man. I don't care how many Bush/McCain barbs are thrown at him, everybody knows John McCain is nothing like W, and they clearly despise each other.
My squeeker prediction falls apart if Obama picks Clinton. Obama/Clinton is an unstoppable steamroller and if Barack is as pragmatic as I think he is, he'll do it. I think he is as good a politician as Bill Clinton was, and Bill lays awake at night thinking the same thing. If Obama picks her, Bill is going to slam his fist on the table, pick up the phone, call James Carville and say, "That guy's good!"
I don't care how many Bush/McCain barbs are thrown at him, everybody knows John McCain is nothing like W
God save us all from what "everybody knows."
Evertbody needs to read this. Or just pay a little attention.
That was an interesting read, Max. This whole Bush and McCain hate each other routine that the Republicans are putting on just shows how much contempt they have for the general public. It's just a transparent bid on their part to protect McCain from the political train wreck that is George W Bush, but it's not going to wash. McCain and Bush are both Republicans the USA and the rest of the world have had two terms of Republican government and it has been a complete disaster. Why would anyone want these bastards in for another term?
I found this particularly interesting:
Bush Said He Will Do Whatever It Takes For McCain To Win. While endorsing McCain at the White House, President Bush said, "If my showing up and endorsing him helps him - or if I'm against him and it helps him - either way, I want him to win. Bush added, "I got a lot to do, but I'm going to find ample time to help. I can help raise him money, and if he wants my pretty face standing by his side at one of these rallies, I'd be glad to show up." [Associated Press, 3/5/08]
Allow me to clarify. I'm not disagreeing that McCain will continue many moronic Republican policies. I'm merely pointing out that, unlike W., he is not a complete immoral idiot. He's a smart, decent human being whom I disagree with. But no worries. He's gonna lose.
The Obama World Tour is about to commence. This is going to be awesome!
Scratch that "decent human being" stuff. I guess McCain told a rape joke in 1986. His campaign explained it as "McCain being McCain." Unbelievable. Bye Bye Johnny!
An Obama anecdote: I picked up the new issue of Rolling Stone with Obama on the cover at 7/11 [beer & chips store in the US]. I put the magazine on the counter and the clerk said "Obama! Obama!" I said, "We're going to get this done!" I got home and read the interview. Obama's last statement was, "We're going to get this done." Pretty cool.
I just saw Obama on the news giving a speech in Berlin and over 200,000 people showed up to support him. They were cheering and some were waving American flags. In his speech Obama called for end to the division between the USA and Europe. I doubt Bush or McCain would’ve got the same positive response.
Brian Williams interviewed him as he walked away from the crowd. Obama said he asked his advance team, "How many people does this place hold? They told me half a million. I almost fired them all right there." Funny.
I hope, I hope, I hope for the best.
I think Obama is the best choice.
Max I think you are going to have President Obama over there. As to VP who knows?