[-V-]

He's on all the talk shows promoting his book but I'm not buying it or him. Set aside the fact that it would be hard to get an African American elected with an African name that sounds like Osama (because, of course, non of that matters). What uninspires me is that he has taken few stands in Congress and whenever I hear him speak, it is always generalities. Well spoken, steady and even, but merely dips his toe in the issues.

In contrast, last election, before the media cut him down for getting too excited, voters were enthusiastic about Howard Dean because he spoke up courageously on the issues.

Is this what America really wants now -- someone who doesn't get too excited? If so, maybe he's our man. If not, it appears to me the media is trying to stack the deck with two Democrats who can't win the White House. Obama, who's playing it safe because of his race and Hillary who's playing the middle because of her gender.

I'll confess that I don't know enough about Obama so correct me if I'm wrong.

[Jennifer_SFBA]

-V-, please don't judge a book by it's cover. I highly recommend you read his book, "Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance" by Barack Obama. I really, truly admire Barack Obama, and you will too if do read it.

[MAGI]

Hi Jennifer & -V-,
I was pretty convinced Obama was a good Democratic 2008 presidential nominee but gradually changed my mind because he tried to appease both right & left and would not take a strong stand on many serious issues.

I was surprised at Obama's compromising positions! Then I learned Lieberman was his MENTOR! Then I understood what happened to Obama.

Look where those compromises have taken the working middle American and their families! I, for one, have had ENOUGH of the long time incumbents and their compromising! They have pretty much buried the "American Dream".

Obama has to do a turnaround if I am to consider him.

I'm liking Russ Feingold and John Conyers...............

I would like to see more of Rocky from Salt Lake City, Utah........

:thumbup:

[-V-]

Jen, I trust your judgement when you say there is much to admire about Obama. But I'm done prioritizing the admireability and likeability of candidates for this particular job. I'm tired of hearing about their family and background. The first thing I want out of their mouths is where they stand on the issues. And then, if there is any time left over in the interview they can talk more about themselves.

People say Obama's speaches are inspiring. Well, so was Ronald Reagan's "thousand points of light". That well spoken former hollywood leading man's crusty old fool politics was the "inspiration" for today's administration. It's what they've done and will do in office that counts, not what they say on stage.

[haus]

I looked him up at http://senate.ontheissues.org/Senate/Barack_Obama.htm and didn't see much that was surprising. Here's what stood out:


NO on redeploying troops out of Iraq by July 2007:
Waffled on PATRIOT Act Reauthorization.
Voted for Oman Free Trade Agreement.
Looks like he's on the fence vis-a-vis school vouchers.


He doesn't appear to have any votes or quotes with respect to Faith Based Initiatives (topic 20) and drug rehab vs. inprisonment (topic 19). These two areas can provide some surprises.

[Jennifer_SFBA]

Between the Devil and the deep blue sea with only Democrats and Republicans representing, not We, the people, but the powerful, enormously wealthy RepubliCratics of America, I must vote Green Party 2008. Not even Feingold stood up to philabuster the bill that destroyed habeous corpus and that allowed the U.S. to determine what part, if any, of the Geneva Conventions the U.S. would adhere to. Feingold was certainly no "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" at the time someone, anyone was most needed!!! Their oath of office means nothing to our U.S. Congressional representatives. In my view, they are all traitors to the principles of the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. My bottom line: NO FASCIST DICTATORSHIP IN AMERICA were law applies only to the citizenry while the most heinous evils committed by federal elected officials are protected in the name of National Security!

Vote GREEN for all United States federal candidates for federal political office in 2008, and make U.S. government the government of the people, for the people and by the people once again!!!

I began with Feinstein this year, 2006, by casting my vote instead for Todd Chretien, the Green Party candidate for CA U.S. Senator. Any religiously oriented or learning, or non-progressive candidate for CA state or local office, I likewise voted down and for the Green Party candidate.

For state judicial candidates where their record was NOT available on legal rights descisions, gay marriage, GLBT rights or abortion, etc., I looked up whether they had been Republican or Democratic appointees. With no other compelling information available to me, I voted against Republican governor appointees for judicial positions and for Democratic governor appointees.

[kenoking53]

Obama is a new blood direction for our party. Al Gore is from a leftover regime. Hiliary is a good choice, but were not ready for a woman in the White House.

[FDRfollower]

Obama is a new blood direction for our party. Al Gore is from a leftover regime. Hiliary is a good choice, but were not ready for a woman in the White House.

So, what are your reasons for choosing Obama? Organize us. :) Media hype words aren't a good enough reason to choose a potential president. :fightthepower:

[haus]

I started glancing at Obama's voting record. Here are a few things that stuck out:


He voted for the Mexico fence -- H.R. 6061: Secure Fence Act of 2006. (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h109-6061)
He voted for H.R. 5684: United States-Oman Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h109-5684).
He voted for S. 2271: USA PATRIOT Act Additional Reauthorizing Amendments Act of 2006 (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s109-2271) and H.R. 4659: PATRIOT Act Extension bill. (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h109-4659)
He voted for S. 5: Class Action Fairness Act of 2005. (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s109-0005)


These don't give me a warm and fuzzy view of his politics.

[JamesP]

Obama is a wonderful pipe dream for Democrats in search of a fresh face.
He is also a sure loser and an easy ticket to 4-8 more years of Republican oval office.

[kenoking53]

Obama is so popular that they were scalping tickets to see him. The black vote,spanish vote, all minorty votes would bring him in. Don't forget, 3 southern states are going Democratic since the hurricane devistation without GOP help.

[-V-]

Obama is so popular that they were scalping tickets to see him. The black vote,spanish vote, all minorty votes would bring him in. Don't forget, 3 southern states are going Democratic since the hurricane devistation without GOP help.

My fear is that Obama is even more popular with the GOP strategists. I believe they believe they could play to America's fears in a campaign against Obama or Hillary the way they did Ford with the notorious "call me!" ad. That aside, neither candidate is liberal enough for me.

[MAGI]

All I needed to learn about Obama was............Lieberman was selected to be his mentor in the Senate! Ever after I paid particular attention to his words.

uhh, No, not Obama or Hillary, for my liking! Too close to corporate America.

[kenoking53]

He's on all the talk shows promoting his book but I'm not buying it or him. Set aside the fact that it would be hard to get an African American elected with an African name that sounds like Osama (because, of course, non of that matters). What uninspires me is that he has taken few stands in Congress and whenever I hear him speak, it is always generalities. Well spoken, steady and even, but merely dips his toe in the issues.

In contrast, last election, before the media cut him down for getting too excited, voters were enthusiastic about Howard Dean because he spoke up courageously on the issues.

Is this what America really wants now -- someone who doesn't get too excited? If so, maybe he's our man. If not, it appears to me the media is trying to stack the deck with two Democrats who can't win the White House. Obama, who's playing it safe because of his race and Hillary who's playing the middle because of her gender.

I'll confess that I don't know enough about Obama so correct me if I'm wrong.
You are wrong. Or are you racist? He's had tickets scalloped to hear and see him talk in Seattle and Milwaukee. We need a different direction, not the statis qoute. The old regime is'nt going to work anymore. The southern states are turning left after the lousy help they received from the present Administration.

[Lionhearted]

Dude,
You can call the-V-one lots of things, but racist ain't one of them. He simply states that he is thus far unimpressed with Obama. Me, I like Obama, but must ask, exactly what has he said or done that has made a difference, at least up to this point in time?

[-V-]

You are wrong. Or are you racist? He's had tickets scalloped to hear and see him talk in Seattle and Milwaukee. We need a different direction, not the statis qoute.

That would be an interesting slogan for his campaign:

VOTE OBAMA -- OR ARE YOU A RACIST?

Obama is NOT a different direction. Since you haven't brought up a single fresh idea or stand on any issue from him you imply that he is different direction simply because he is Black rather than because of his politics. Likewise you imply that Blacks and other minorities will vote for him because he is Black. I suspect that there is indeed a racist in this thread, but it isn't me.

I've got more news for you. Figuratively speaking, Barack Obama isn't even Black. He's about as Black as Colin Powel or Condeleza Rice.

If you want to vote "Black" you'd vote Al Sharpton. Al would be my #1 choice for President if he wasn't connected to the church. Full review here http://progressivesonline.com/showthread.php?t=480&highlight=sharpton

Even Bill Clinton is more Black than Barack Obama. If you want more Black in the White House vote Hillary and she'll bring Bill with her.

Barack Obama, as the great Black hope... don't make me laugh.
Barack Obama couldn't even "shine Al Sharpton's shoes!"

[-V-]

You can call the-V-one lots of things, but racist ain't one of them.

thanks Lion. now as for the things you can call me. Let's see...

liberal, ultra liberal, bleeding heart liberal, tree hugger, animal rights wacko, conspiracy theorist, peacenick, passivist, nature child, dreamer, Bush basher...

anything else? I'm sure ProudGOP could come up with a few more labels.

[FDRfollower]

You are wrong. Or are you racist? He's had tickets scalloped to hear and see him talk in Seattle and Milwaukee. We need a different direction, not the statis qoute. The old regime is'nt going to work anymore. The southern states are turning left after the lousy help they received from the present Administration.


This is a scallop

http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/images/scallop_weathervane.jpg

this is scalping tickets.

http://static.flickr.com/37/121726988_37dedffcd6_m.jpg

But, what has he said, or done, that makes him presidential material?

What has he said or done about the collapse of the Auto industry? Does he have any idea of dealing with the worst economic collapse in history? Has he called for the impeachment of the criminals in the white house? Has he opposed the war in any significant way?

Any two bit huckster can preach "god" these days and draw large crowds, just look at the audience for "rev." Haggard.

Back in the '20s, Sinclair Lewis warned us about these kind of preachers in

http://www.musicweb-international.com/film/1998/Oct98/elmerg.jpg

because this kind of religeon was the worst kind of hypocracy and brought serious problems both then and now.

[FDRfollower]

Ok, I went to Obamas website, and on the front page were two things that I thought were ok (for a Senator).

One, his speech on the war.

Obama speech (http://obama.senate.gov/speech/061120-a_way_forward_in_iraq/index.html)

and legislation on voting fraud.

Legislation (http://obama.senate.gov/press/061117-obama_introduces_legislation_to_criminalize_electi on-day_fraud/index.html)

Now Kenoking, a report on the radio said that Obama has launched an exploratory committee to look into his being a presidential candidate. Do you work for his campaign?

[FDRfollower]

Jane D'arc, I have a question.

From what you can see (if you've studied it), is Obamas legislation on vote-fraud adequate? Is it a matter of enforcing the laws currently on the books or just increasing the penalty for the crime, which I don't think will help, if the justice system won't enforce the laws we have already?

Thanks.

[Jane of Arc]

Hi FDR ~

Obama's legislation is good. But, my question is why isn't it an addendum to a desperately needed piece of American voting legislation that mandates honest, public, transparent, democratic elections?

Here's my gut read on Osama ... he's a "creation." His "career" is happening overnight. Who is he to get such mass media attention? What has he really done to be considered such a superstar? What's the agenda and by who? Barack Obama is a Rhodes Scholar, just as globalist, 'free trade' Bill Clinton is. He's part of the club. He's a talented, polished creation with a lot of money behind him. In short, he's part of the oligarchy.

Of course the liberals are smitten when he says all the politically correct things. Not this liberal. But then I'm just a nut job who wants democracy in this Republic for the first time. Color me crazy. :p

[Lionhearted]

Color me crazy. :p

Okay, how's this?

http://progressivesonline.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=29&d=1164954137

[FDRfollower]

Bad link?

[Lionhearted]

Appears to be. Jiminy Christmas! it worked last night when I test drove it before posting it. Actually I wanted to insert an image there but have not figured out how to do this. I really try not to be an idiot but sometimes it just doesn't work out. :)

[FDRfollower]

Its not too hard. The quick and dirty way is follows:

1. Go to website with the picture you want to copy.

2. Right click on picture, choose properties, and copy the URL info of the picture CTRL C.

3. Back here at POL, click on the little Insert Image icon right above in this Reply window.

4. Paste the URL info into the requester with CTRL V, and click ok.

http://www.weblab.org/workingstiff/graphics/actionguide/THUMBSUP.gif

[-V-]

actually FDR that method of posting a photo is indeed "quick" but it may be too "dirty".

Using the url from someone else's sight causes the photo to be loaded from their server everytime someone views the post here. Some site's do not want the extra load on their server and they can easily trace who it is that is loading their graphic.

Unfortunately, the legal approach requires that you download a graphic (if it is in the public domain) then upload it via the attachment button at the top of the "advanced" message window which allows you to browse the file on your hard drive.

[-V-]

unfortunately Joe America will subliminaly interpret his full name
Barack Hussein Obama as
Iraq Hussein Osama

[Jane of Arc]

Why is America fawning over Obama? Why?

What are his accomplishments in his first 2 years in the Senate? Can anyone tell me?

What important political stance has Obama taken to challenge the corrupt Bush administration? Any?

Why did Obama vote for the wiretapping of Americans?

Why did Obama vote for the confirmation of Condi Rice as Secretary of State?

Why did Obama vote for a corporate written piece of legislation to "reform" class-action lawsuits?

After running as an anti-war candidate and saying he wouldn't of voted to go war had he been in the Senate ... why doesn't he use his present, enormous political clout to contest the war? Like say, Republican Chuck Hagel has?

Why does Obama have all this political clout based on ... what?

What does it mean when someone's a Rhodes Scholar? Does anybody know about that club?

Any why does just about every liberal I know say that Obama is a good choice? Because ....???



That just tells me how good the brainwashing capacity is of the media. Since I canceled my TV service ... I'm thinking a tad clearer. Don't think, my liberal friends, that you can't be influenced. We all can be. Barack Obama has been gotten to, groomed and trotted out like a prize pony.

Somebody PLEASE answer my questions above and explain to me why you back Obama?

[-V-]

Somebody PLEASE answer my questions above and explain to me why you back Obama?I second Jane's call for answer's on Obama. I know there are about 500 people a day reading this forum. Please jump in and enlighten us.

I canceled my TV serviceI'm too afraid to cancel my cable. I want to know what America is being told and exactly what they're missing so I can try and fill in the gaps in my social circles and here online.

[Jennifer_SFBA]

If I know from the voluminous video evidence we all have available that 9/11 was an inside job, certainly there is no way our Representatives and Senators do not know. Afterall, they receive information from the electorate in volumes. I know I have personally informed Pelosi and Feinstein. Bush's government committed murder. Where is Obama on that, our Consitutional rights and the Patriot Act, etc.? I will not vote for any candidate for Federal political office who does not act to "... protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, both foreign and domestic ..." as they swear to do and who will not seek impeachment on the basis of the 9/11 evidence, illegal wiretapping, etc. That includes Barack O'bama.

Absent that, please VOTE GREEN because it is the right thing to do!

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4380137365762802294&q=William+ Rodriguez&hl=en

[FDRfollower]

I have no TV either, so I guess i'm missing out on much of the hype. Is it true that oprah winfrey endorsed him? With idiocy running the Dem party, it can't be a good reason. ;)

Simple explanation of a Rhodes Scholar. Its a fund set up by arch racist/imperialist Cecil Rhodes to bring bright young tallent to England and either convince or brainwash them to be agents or supporters of the Anglo/Dutch financial oligarchy and its sick, twisted axiomatic beliefs. Hopefully, to recruit enough american leaders, to bring "that wayward nation" back into the fold of the mother country as a proper marcher lord and colony.

Hey ~V~, is it true that we get 500 unique hits a DAY? :eek:

[MAGI]

I have no TV either, so I guess i'm missing out on much of the hype. Is it true that oprah winfrey endorsed him? With idiocy running the Dem party, it can't be a good reason. ;)

Simple explanation of a Rhodes Scholar. Its a fund set up by arch racist/imperialist Cecil Rhodes to bring bright young tallent to England and either convince or brainwash them to be agents or supporters of the Anglo/Dutch financial oligarchy and its sick, twisted axiomatic beliefs. Hopefully, to recruit enough american leaders, to bring "that wayward nation" back into the fold of the mother country as a proper marcher lord and colony.

Hey ~V~, is it true that we get 500 unique hits a DAY? :eek:

BINGO!


Ah yes, there we go...."Clinton, the best Republican the rethuglicans ever had", Rhodes Scholar student......and NAFTA CAFTA, ShaftU.S., along with Senators Hillary R. Clinton & Biden and, and, and.............

Old, but current: why old dogs sniff: (as well as all those lovely perks they get for life).........like National Healthcare......:

October 05, 2005

THANKS JOE, BUT NO THANKS
Joe Biden is forming an "exploratory committee" to gauge his chances for a presidential bid in 2008. Here's why his committee will find that his chances of having sex with a polar bear are better.
Two weeks before a new, more restrictive national bankruptcy law goes into effect, financially strapped Americans are rushing to file for protection from their creditors, with filings climbing to an unprecedented average of 13,000 a day last week.
Week after week records are toppled. Last week's 68,287 filings surpassed the record set the week before by 24 percent, and this week's total is likely to be higher, according to data released yesterday by Lundquist Consulting Inc., a financial research firm. Daily filings averaged 10,367 in September, compared with an average of 6,079 in September 2004.
That bill was Biden's baby. When it was taken off of life support he kept pocketing banking industry cash to dash over to the Old Bills Home and give it mouth-to-mouth resuscitation to keep it alive until there was a friendly enough congress and a president willing to sign it. That bill and all it's doing to folks in Louisiana, and will do to families everywhere is a stone that needs to be hung around Joe Bidens neck in perpetuity. Someday, there should be a map published to his grave so people whose lives were ****ed up by this bill can go piss and shit on his grave, to thank him.
In the macabre irony sweepstakes, the republicans who crawled up and had cash inserted into their asses by the banking industry lobbyists to get this bill passed, piously proclaim that people should not get themselves into a position where they need to declare bankruptcy.
Unfortunately, those good god-fearin' souls forgot to exempt or allow any leniency at all for folks who are forced into bankruptcy because of medical bills or even, hmmmmm, natural disasters. Imagine that. CongressCriminals who have run our country into massive debt for generations to come, lecturing penniless Americans on "Personal Responsibility".
Just think what would happen if every American went and filed bankruptcy on October 16th before the close of business, whether they needed to or not. One word: Chaos. I guess that the banking industry could say "Missed it by that much".
posted by Jo Fish on 10.05.05 at 12:33 AM




COMMENTS:
Biden deserves to be pissed and shat upon now. Why wait for the CS'er to kick. Maybe Jimmy Jeff is already taking care of it anyhow.
What if everyone just stopped paying their credit card statements. Cards get shut off and then the economy crashes because most folks don't have the spare change to pay for things up front. Would Sarbanes-Oxley cover this kind of projected bad debt for the Reagan de-regulated banking industry?
Buzz Meeks
posted by: Buzz Meeks on 10.05.05 at 09:09 PM [permalink]


I filed in September, more than a year after I had met with an attorney. I couldn't come up with the cash for my attorney for over a year. I make a better than median income and don't live extravagantly. I drive a Hyundai Accent and live in a tract house. But with Peak Oil coming to bite the entire world in the ass in the next few years and with the grim possibility that the wingnut theocrats and the rob the US Treasury crowd will find a way to institute debtor's prison, I saw no other way out of an incredible future mess.
I wouldn't piss down Joe Biden's throat if his heart were on fire.
I would piss on his person, though. His and every other SOB who supported this bill, including the junior Senator from New York.
There's plenty of blame to go around on this one.
posted by: Eve Arden is My Co-Pilot on 10.06.05 at 10:18 AM [permalink]


What if everyone took all their money out of the banks on that date, and kept it out? Just put a bit back in when they needed to write a utility check, and the rest pay by money order, or cash. Bank failure?
Would it send a message?
posted by: Margot on 10.06.05 at 04:04 PM [permalink]


No to Biden in this unofficial poll.
posted by: Nina on 10.06.05 at 05:29 PM [permalink]


How can we contact Biden to tell him "I'll pass on supporting your run!"? I'd rather not vote at all for the presidency than reward this kind of crap. Who is naive enough to think that the credit card companies will now lower interest charges now that their profits are insured? Another example of why I am not an enthusiastic fan of liaise faire capitalism...
posted by: Ray Robinson on 10.07.05 at 08:52 PM [permalink]


That and the plagiarism thing. If I recall, that's what shortened his 1988 run. There's no statute of limitations on dirt, so it doesn't help one's campaign to be a dirtbag.
posted by: ts on 10.10.05 at 07:17 PM [permalink]

:mad:

[NeoCon Newbie]

honestly I don't think he will win because there is to much hatered toward Muslims in this country regardless if you are a rep/dem.

[FDRfollower]

I'm speechless sometimes at the illiteracy and lack of awareness of our newest wannabee neo-con mouth. My guess, is he's shooting for a spot as a potential Rush Limburger know-nothing-speak-forever-to-avoid-thinking type.

Despite all the nauseating hype, don't you find it rather amusing that he picks up on a non-scandal when Obama was 8 years old. Has this retarded person somehow missed the fact (thats repeated waaaay too much) that Obama is a CHRISTIAN. You know, nice suit, attends church, carries a book with the title of "HOLY BIBLE", speaks to crowds of people about his faith, etc. etc.

Geez. :dissapointed:

[Jennifer_SFBA]

Today I found several interesting articles about Barrack Obama's run for the presidency 2008.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17085507/site/newsweek/


Updated: 9:38 a.m. PT Feb 12, 2007

Echoes of Lincoln

Barack Obama stood in Springfield and declared war on the status quo. But is that enough to win the White House?

• Fineman: Clinton-Obama Fight Gets Nasty

The two leading Democratic presidential camps have gotten into a nasty row involving Hollywood kingmaker David Geffen. But neither side wins this fight.

But it was more than worth the brief discomfort to witness the scene: the lean figure of Obama, framed by the Greek revival capitol, its worn limestone golden in the morning sun; the young, multi-cultural crowd cheering for him; the echoes of Lincoln and the Heartland; the whistles of the freight trains.

America at its best.

It was inspiring and humbling. This, after all, was the very place in which Lincoln had warned that a nation divided against itself could not stand. It was here that the age-old argument over race reached toward its crescendo. And it is here that Obama began a campaign that might end that argument altogether-or so we can hope.

And yet if Obama’s candidacy winds up being about race and history, he won’t be the Democratic presidential nominee, let alone the 44th president of the United States, for he will have failed in his stated mission to unite the country.

He has to be about the future, and he knows it. He made several bold assertions about himself and his campaign as harbingers of change. His challenge now is to prove that the assertions are true, that they make sense and that they can help him win.

Let’s look at some of them:

“LET US BE THE GENERATION….” The size of the crowd was not overwhelming, but was impressive because it was young. Most of the volunteers were college kids. In the lobby and bar of the Abraham Lincoln Hotel, the overall sense was that a new crowd had arrived in town. There were some veterans of earlier campaigns (particularly that of former Sen. Bill Bradley back in 2000) but otherwise not too many familiar faces.

Not since Gary Hart ran for president in 1984 have I heard a candidate use so much generational language-as if being young was, in and of itself, reason enough. It’s not. Hart was the first Baby Boomer candidate, but it took another eight years, and other reasons, for us to elect or two Baby Boomer presidents. Obama is saying: enough! Time to give the post-boomers their chance.

Technically, he’s a Boomer himself, though on the tail end of that age cohort. He is the first candidate, however, to specifically appeal to those born after 1964, and the first who can plausibly claim to be one of them, if for no other reason than, by the time he went to Harvard Law School, he had joined that younger group.

But younger voters are notorious for not turning out to vote. If this strategic appeal is going to work, Obama is going to have to translate buzz into buzz saw, cutting through the apathy and inertia of younger voters on election day.

The early Internet traffic is encouraging. The new Web site his campaign went up with on the day of his announcement is state-of-the-art. More interesting, and perhaps important, has been the Obama traffic on Facebook. The campaign’s communications chief, Robert Gibbs, told me that the leading group on that site now has an astonishing 250,000 members. The second-largest has more than 50,000. Those people need to be converted into real-world activists.

[Jennifer_SFBA]

Continued:


Updated: 9:38 a.m. PT Feb 12, 2007

“THE CYNICS AND THE LOBBYISTS AND THE SPECIAL INTERESTS WHO HAVE TURNED OUR GOVERNMENT INTO A GAME ONLY THEY CAN AFFORD TO PLAY….”: Obama wants to run as a reformer, someone wary of the old ways and the old cash transactions. But however much he relies on the internet for small donations, he is going to need as much help from the “bundlers” as he can get his hands on-if for no other reason than Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is out to lock up the nomination early by building an overwhelming cash advantage.

Everybody knows what Hillary is up to—and no one will be surprised that the people who give money to her campaign have agendas of their own. That’s business as usual. Obama is promising something different, but can he really be different?


“I HAVE A PLAN THAT WILL BRING OUR COMBAT TROOPS HOME BY MARCH 2008”: How willing is Obama to focus on this, in the Senate and on the campaign trail? Obama will have to jostle with others for the right to take on Hillary Clinton, who has staked out the most cautious policy on the war. Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico, in an impressive speech last week (which should have gotten more coverage than it did) said that he wants all combat troops out by Dec. 31 of this year. Former Sen. John Edwards wants to start withdrawing troops almost immediately—at least 40,000 of them. Even Hillary vows to end the war if President Bush hasn’t done so by Jan. 20, 2009. So what makes Obama’s ideas so special? He’s going to have to explain that.

“I WANT TO WIN THE NEXT BATTLE….”: Obama’s story, as he tells it in his elegant first book, “Dreams of My Father,” gives hints of the battles he has faced in the past, in his surroundings and within himself. Some people I saw here in Springfield were clutching copies of it, almost as if it were a sacred text. As a boy he fought battles to adapt to new surroundings; as an adolescent he fought battles against the lure of drugs; as a young man he had to conquer the demons of racial confusions and anger.

My sense from having spent some time with him is that he is a pretty strong guy—brilliant, something of a dreamer, but also someone who was taught early on (by his Indonesian step-father) to defend himself physically and who did not mind a school brawl when one came his way in a teenager in Hawaii.

He also likes to be liked. He likes to be seen as the inclusive one, the imperturbable one - the one with the best grades and the best manners. The good grandson.

If he wants to lead, he is going to have to get down and get nasty with Hillary, Edwards and the rest. He is going to have to say not only why he is qualified by his life and resume, but why they don’t measure up to the country’s needs.

He can’t just rely on the “better angels of our nature,” as Lincoln said in his first inaugural address. Obama is going to have to do something else Lincoln did: declare war. In Obama’s generation that means a three-front battle against American policy in Iraq, the Democratic establishment (Hillary) and against the status quo in Washington.

[Jennifer_SFBA]

Another article that caught my attention is the one below that indicates areas of particular interest and concern to Barack Obama personally, such that, if he were to be elected President of the United States in 2008, he would devote official United States attention to them.



Obama most costly freshman world traveler

First term senator's charges nearly 45% higher than his classmates

Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., right, claps hands with his grandmother, Sarah Hussein Obama, during a visit to his father's house in Nyongoma Kogelo village, in western Kenya, on Aug. 26, 2006.

Sayyid Azim / AP

• A call to serve

Sen. Barack Obama has long heard the call to a public life.

• Analyzing the 2008 presidential field

Updated: 6:51 a.m. PT Feb 15, 2007
WASHINGTON - Barack Obama's two years in the Senate have taken him around the world, from Russia to Iraq to Kenya - an itinerary more costly to taxpayers than any other senator who took office with him.

The Illinois Democrat's travels in 2005 and 2006 cost taxpayers nearly $28,000 as he studied nuclear proliferation, AIDS, Middle Eastern violence and more.

Eight other freshmen senators took office in 2005, and about $19,200 was the most anyone spent for government-paid travel, according to reports filed with the Senate Office of Public Records.

Obama's journeys are unusual for such a junior senator, but not for someone thinking of a presidential run someday.

"Valuable or not, it's the thing they all do to show that they're knowledgeable about the world," said Stephen Hess, a George Washington University professor and former presidential aide.

Obama, who announced his candidacy Saturday for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, was one of two freshmen members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in the 109th Congress. He spent $18,822 in per diem and transportation costs in 2006 as he visited Middle East hotspots and toured Africa. The previous year he spent $8,313 visiting the former Soviet Union and the United Kingdom.

The freshman with the next greatest spending on taxpayer-funded trips was Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., whose visits included China, Russia and the Middle East at a cost of about $19,200. Ranking third was freshman Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., who spent $17,867 to visit China and Kuwait, among other places. Neither is a member of the Foreign Relations Committee.

However, other freshmen also took trips - both foreign and domestic - funded by private groups, which Obama does not accept. If Coburn's privately funded trips are included, his total travel amounts to nearly $29,000 for the two years, more than any other freshman.

Obama no match for more experienced collegues

Obama's travels were also eclipsed by some of the committee's more senior senators.

Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., for instance, spent more than $61,000 on just taxpayer-subsidized trips during 2005-2006. Sen. Richard Lugar, the Indiana Republican who was then chairman of the committee, spent more than $94,000 in combined taxpayer- and privately funded trips.

Obama's staff issued a brief statement saying he's proud that his Russia trip led to an anti-proliferation law and that his Africa trip encouraged people to be tested for AIDS. Staff members also released a letter from Lugar praising Obama's personal diplomacy on the African trip.

Before he went to Africa, Obama told The Associated Press that the trip held "symbolic power" because he is the only black U.S. senator.

"What a trip like this does is it allows me to really target a wide range of issues that come up on the international stage and help Americans appreciate how much our fates are linked with the African continent," Obama said at the time.

Some additional costs

The official travel spending figures reported to the government don't include the cost of flights on military aircraft, which are often used on overseas trips by a congressional delegation. They also omit the staff time and security costs incurred by the U.S. embassies in the countries lawmakers visit.

Senators often bring along aides at additional expense to taxpayers. Obama took his foreign policy adviser and communications director to the former Soviet Union at a cost of $18,576. On the African trip, he took two aides, spending about $6,000 in campaign funds to offset the cost of one.

Obama's trips clearly aren't junkets and could educate him about important issues while strengthening his presidential resume, Hess said.

In Africa, Obama was often treated like royalty. Adoring crowds showed up wherever he went in Kenya, the home of his father.

Obama met several times with AIDS researchers and activists, and he and his wife publicly took an AIDS test to encourage Kenyans to do the same. He caused a stir by speaking out against corruption and the corrosive role of tribal loyalties in the Kenyan government. He also met with African presidents and activists, and traveled to remote villages, refugee camps and U.S. military posts.

And, Obama found time to take his family on a safari - something he did not bill to taxpayers.

When Obama went to the Middle East, he met with Israel's foreign minister, spent two days in Iraq talking to officials and military commanders, and made stops in the Palestinian territory, Jordan and Kuwait.

During his trip to the former Soviet Union, Obama joined Lugar in touring dilapidated weapons factories in Ukraine, watching workers destroy explosives and visiting the site where a nuclear missile was being dismantled.

[Jennifer_SFBA]

The article below touches on Barack Obama's diverse cultural experience growing up including his attendance at a Muslim school between the ages of 6 and 10 in Indonesia and that he and his family are members of the United Church of Christ, a church who has performed same-sex marriage ceremonies and who supports marriage equality.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17079682/



Updated: 4:08 p.m. PT Feb 11, 2007

Obama: Values, not race or beliefs, key to voters

Illinois senator says his ethnicity won’t be a determining role in candidacy

• Analyzing the 2008 presidential field

Updated: 4:08 p.m. PT Feb 11, 2007

IOWA FALLS, Iowa - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Sunday he does not think voters have a litmus test on religion, whether evangelical Christianity or his childhood years in the Muslim faith.

“If your name is Barack Hussein Obama, you can expect it, some of that. I think the majority of voters know that I’m a member of the United Church of Christ, and that I take my faith seriously,” Obama said in an interview with The Associated Press.

“Ultimately what I think voters will be looking for is not so much a litmus test on faith as an assurance that a candidate has a value system and that is appreciative of the role that religious faith can play in helping shape people’s lives,” he said.

In the interview, Obama also said his race might be a “novelty” this early in the presidential contest, sparred with the prime minister of Australia over Iraq, and said he has a higher burden of proof with voters because of his relative inexperience. Obama formally announced his candidacy in Illinois on Saturday and made a beeline for Iowa, site of the first nominating contest next Jan. 14.

Obama’s religious background has come under scrutiny because he attended a Muslim school in Indonesia from age 6 to 10. Obama, who was born in Hawaii, lived in Indonesia with his mother and stepfather from 1967 to 1971 and subsequently returned to Hawaii to live with his maternal grandparents.

Obama attends a Chicago church with his wife and two young daughters. The 2008 presidential field also includes Republican Mitt Romney, a Mormon, and Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., an evangelical Christian who converted to Catholicism in recent years.

Obama’s leading rivals for the Democratic nomination are far better known to voters, the U.S. senator from Illinois said. He was elected in 2004.

“At least two of my fellow candidates have been campaigning nationally for years,” Obama said, referring to New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards. “They have an infrastructure and name recognition that are higher than mine so there will probably be a higher burden of proof for me.”

Plays down racial factor

Few minorities reside in early voting Iowa and New Hampshire but Obama said his race — his mother is white, his father is black — will not play a determining role.

“I think that early on it may spark some curiosity or a sense of novelty, but I think very quickly people will be judging me on the merits. Do I have a message that resonates with people’s concerns about health care and education, jobs and terrorism?” he said. “And if they do, then I think race won’t be a major factor.”

[Jennifer_SFBA]

Continued:



Updated: 4:08 p.m. PT Feb 11, 2007

Calls war ‘a tragic mistake’

At a press conference later in Ames, Obama said he was proud to have opposed the Iraq war from the start while Clinton and others voted to authorize the U.S.-led invasion.

“I don’t think there is a more significant set of decisions than the decision to go to war,” Obama said. “I think the war was a tragic mistake and it never should have been authorized.”

Obama made a habit of stressing his position at every stop, to loud applause. Clinton, meanwhile, ran into some tough questioning while campaigning over the weekend in New Hampshire. One man demanded that she repudiate her 2002 Senate vote to send U.S. troops into battle.

Obama told reporters he thinks his early opposition to the war shows “it was possible to make judgments that this would not work out well” and that it speaks “to the kind of judgment that I will be bringing to the office of president.”

The senator has called for capping the number of U.S. troops in Iraq and then beginning to withdraw them on May 1. He wants a complete pullout of combat brigades by March 31, 2008.

Clinton says she is working to pass legislation capping troop levels and bring to a vote a resolution disapproving of Bush’s planned troop increase.

“I am not clear on how she would proceed at this point to wind down the war in a specific way,” Obama said. “I know that’s she’s stated that she thinks the war should end by the start of the next president’s first term. Beyond that, though, how she wants to accomplish that, I’m not clear on.”

In his speech before thousands at Iowa State University, Obama did not mention Clinton, but he did draw a clear comparison. “We ended up launching a war that should have never been authorized and should have never been waged,” Obama said to cheers.

Dismisses criticism from Australia's Howard

In the AP interview, Obama laughed off criticism Saturday from Australian Prime Minister John Howard, who said Obama’s plans for Iraq “encourage those who wanted to completely destabilize and destroy Iraq.”

“It’s flattering that one of George W. Bush’s allies feels obliged to attack me,” Obama said.

Obama said that if Howard did not think enough was being done in Iraq, he should consider sending more Australian troops to the region. Australia has about 1,400 troops in Iraq, mostly in noncombat roles.

[Jennifer_SFBA]

Barack Obama handily addresses Cheney's political rhetoric with a high level of intellectual acuity.



Obama ridicules Cheney for Iraq, U.K. remarks

Democrat rips VP as ‘same guy that said we’d be greeted as liberators’

Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., puts on a cowboy hat handed to him as the candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination leaves a rally in Austin, Texas, on Friday.

• Analyzing the 2008 presidential field

Updated: 8:00 a.m. PT Feb 24, 2007

AUSTIN, Texas - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama ridiculed Vice President Dick Cheney on Friday for saying Britain’s decision to pull troops from Iraq is a good sign that fits with the strategy for stabilizing the country.

Obama, speaking at a massive outdoor rally in Austin, Texas, said British Prime Minister Tony Blair’s decision this week to withdraw 1,600 troops is a recognition that Iraq’s problems can’t be solved militarily.

“Now if Tony Blair can understand that, than why can’t George Bush and Dick Cheney understand that?” Obama asked thousands of supporters who gathered in the rain to hear him. “In fact, Dick Cheney said this is all part of the plan (and) it was a good thing that Tony Blair was withdrawing, even as the administration is preparing to put 20,000 more of our young men and women in.

“Now, keep in mind, this is the same guy that said we’d be greeted as liberators, the same guy that said that we’re in the last throes. I’m sure he forecast sun today,” Obama said to laughter from supporters holding campaign signs over the heads to keep dry. “When Dick Cheney says it’s a good thing, you know that you’ve probably got some big problems.”

A spokeswoman for Cheney, traveling with him in Australia, said they had no comment on Obama’s remarks.

Cheney told ABC News earlier this week that Blair’s announcement was good news, calling it an affirmation that parts of Iraq have been stabilized.

Obama’s Austin appearance was part of a campaign swing across the country to raise money for his two-week old candidacy and build his reputation nationally.

While in Texas, Obama raised money in Houston Thursday night, where he said he’d like to see an end to the “tit-for-tat” that dominates politics.

The Obama and Clinton campaigns fired off dueling press releases this week over a top Hollywood donor who was a supporter of Bill Clinton but is backing Obama in this race.

Obama told the Austin crowd that they should try to recruit their friends to support his campaign. “I want you to tell them, ‘It’s time for you to turn off the TV and stop playing GameBoy,’” Obama said. “We’ve got work to do.”

Tickets to the rally were free, but Obama asked the attendees to give even $5 or $10. “I don’t want to have to raise money in Hollywood all the time,” he said.

[-V-]

Barack Obama handily addresses Cheney's political rhetoric with a high level of and uncommon verbal acuity.

well that's a start. But his verbal acuity had better become a lot more common to earn my vote.

[haus]

Still not particularly a fan of the candidate, but the "1984 ad" is brilliant campaigning: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6h3G-lMZxjo

[MAGI]

haus,
I'm NOT a fan of the Clintons', but Obama supposedly knows nothing about the video. It's anonymous......................

Did you see THIS one?

With U Tube, this election is really going to be dirty!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QViJwZwXTl0&mode=related&search=

[-V-]

That makes 3 of us who are not a fan of the Clintons but I just watched that ad, but shouldn't have. Its sleazy manipulations and brainwashing cheapen the viewer more than the candidate and exemplifies the very things its supposedly targeting.

Bill's affair, rape allegation, responsibility for not catching Osama, as the reasons for not voting Hillary? Pallllease -- there are enough real reasons to rail against Hillary and the machine that Obama is probably part of.

Someone needs to do a video of a women weilding a big hammer at this video.

:puke:

[haus]

I didn't get much of a charge out of the one MAGI posted. I'm a big fan of "A Clockwork Orange," but it just didn't work for me.

The first one, though -- the copy of the famous Apple "1984" superbowl ad -- I still think that one was... well, brilliant isn't strong enough of a word. I don't think I've ever seen a better political ad.

[MAGI]

haus,-V-,
I found that awful video on the page of the video haus presented.
I Saw haus's first on Olberman's show last evening and a bit of it now on Lou Dobbs tonight.

You have my O.K. to erase it. It shouldn't be on Obama's site for sure.

[-V-]

that's ok, Mag, it is a valid link that you forwarned was dirty politics.

As for the first, I agree that it was a brilliant Apple ad (widely accepted as one of the best ads of all time) but merely sticking Hillary's face on the screen is not much of an accomplishment. On the other hand it will resonate with progressives who understand the difference between the potential primary candidates and could be a lasting image through this campaign.

Obama has yet to prove that his face doesn't belong on that screen as well.

I'd like to superimpos the McDonald's Arc on that screen.

[FDRfollower]

Well, Barack was out here in Oakland on the hustings. His speech wasn't much, just simple campaign rhetoric with no substance. "I'm going to... I'm going to... the war is bad..." Worst aspects, borrowing from Gore back in the 90's, said we need infrastructure, but only mentioned broadband??!! Stupidly, with the ongoing meltdown of the housing bubble threatening the entire system, said that we've had "UNpresedented economic growth"

Sad.

[Jane of Arc]

Did you go to hear him speak, FDR? Or was this on TV? I was just wondering if you saw him in person, did he have that electrifying, charismatic personality the media is hyping? I find that "hype" from the major networks very disturbing. :confused2:

And let's not forget those 2 little words ... Rhodes & Scholar. :dontknow:

[FDRfollower]

No, I was doing errands when he was speaking in front of city hall. Two of my associates instead got the chance to go and hear him, and Barack didn't impress them much.

I cringe at the thought of the upcoming primary "debates".

[Jennifer_SFBA]

Though I'm not at all progressively excited about it, I think Richardson/Edwards is able to win the 08' election. I don't think America is ready to vote for a woman President, unfortunately, and from my progressive point of view, I would never vote for Hillary. America does have a racist streak, so, I don't think America is ready to vote for any Presidential candidate who is non-caucasian either, unfortunately too. America is very far away from voting for the best, the brightest and the most politically progressive.

[Jennifer_SFBA]

Today Buzzflash offered Barack Obama's first published book for review, the book he wrote before he ever entered politics:

http://www.buzzflash.com/store/reviews/575



Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance (Paperback)
By Barack Obama

BUZZFLASH REVIEWS

Obama's recent 25 million dollars raised in three months moves him into the heavyweight category as far as political prognosticators are concerned. No one expected him to equal Hillary's take in the first major fundraising benchmark of the 2008 primary campaign.

But what makes Barack Obama tick?

This paperback edition of his much-lauded memoir introduces a reflective, skilled writer. Obama is the opposite of George W. Bush in that Bush is an empty vessel of cliched posturing, devoid of self-reflection and proud of it.

Obama, on the other hand, sees life as a journey. Long before he entered history when he spoke at the 2004 Democratic Convention, Obama did an unusual thing for someone who would become a nationally viable politician: he looked inside himself, his past, and wrote his own memoir.

No ghost writers here, just Barack Obama exploring how he came to be the person whom he is.

“Provocative . . . Persuasively describes the phenomenon of belonging to two different worlds, and thus belonging to neither.”
—New York Times Book Review

“Fluidly, calmly, insightfully, Obama guides us straight to the intersection of the most serious questions of identity, class, and race.”
—Washington Post Book World

“Beautifully crafted . . . moving and candid . . . this book belongs on the shelf beside works like James McBride’s The Color of Water and Gregory Howard Williams’s Life on the Color Line as a tale of living astride America’s racial categories.” —Scott Turow

“Obama’s writing is incisive yet forgiving. This is a book worth savoring.”
—Alex Kotlowitz, author of There Are No Children Here

From Booklist:

Obama argues with himself on almost every page of this lively autobiographical conversation. He gets you to agree with him, and then he brings in a counternarrative that seems just as convincing. Son of a white American mother and of a black Kenyan father whom he never knew, Obama grew up mainly in Hawaii. After college, he worked for three years as a community organizer on Chicago's South Side. Then, finally, he went to Kenya, to find the world of his dead father, his "authentic" self. Will the truth set you free, Obama asks? Or will it disappoint? Both, it seems.

His search for himself as a black American is rooted in the particulars of his daily life; it also reads like a wry commentary about all of us. He dismisses stereotypes of the "tragic mulatto" and then shows how much we are all caught between messy contradictions and disparate communities. He discovers that Kenya has 400 different tribes, each of them with stereotypes of the others. Obama is candid about racism and poverty and corruption, in Chicago and in Kenya. Yet he does find community and authenticity, not in any romantic cliche, but with "honest, decent men and women who have attainable ambitions and the determination to see them through."

BUZZFLASH REVIEWS

[MAGI]

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_rob_kall_071010_obama_says_he_will_v.htm

October 10, 2007 at 07:45:39

Obama Says He Will Vote for NAFTA Expansion

by Rob Kall (Posted by Rob Kall) Page 1 of 1 page(s)

http://www.opednews.com




Hot off the presses from MSNBC:

"Obama said he would vote for a Peruvian trade agreement next week, in response to a question from a man in Londonderry, NH who called NAFTA and CAFTA a disaster for American workers. He said he supported the trade agreement with Peru because it contained the labor and environmental standards sought by groups like the AFL-CIO, despite the voter's protests to the contrary. He also affirmed his support for free trade."
The voter's "protests to the contrary" are exactly right. The AFL-CIO does not support the bill expanding NAFTA into Peru, and the much-trumpeted labor/environmental standards leave enforcement up to the Bush administration, rather than empowering third parties to enforce them (like corporations have the power to enforce investor rights provisions in these same trade agreements). Leaving enforcement to the Bush administration - or any administration - is the biggest loophole possible. It is precisely why corporate lobbyists have bragged to reporters that the standards are not enforceable.


Obama is the first presidential candidate to officially declare his/her support for the NAFTA expansion moving through the Congress.His announcement is not necessarily surprising, considering he was the keynote speaker at the launch of the Hamilton Project - a Wall Street front group working to drive a wedge between Democrats and organized labor on globalization issues. His announcement comes just days after a Wall Street Journal poll found strong bipartisan opposition to lobbyist-written NAFTA-style trade policies.

Trade has been known to be a huge issue in Iowa (remember Dick Gephardt in 1988), so this announcement could very well ripple through the 2008 primary.

[FDRfollower]

Read this note, plus, keep in mind that Warren Buffett is backing him too. The guy who took Arnold Shwarzeneger to visit Lord Jacob Rothschild before they annointed him Gov. of California.

Hedge/Private Equity Fund Vultures All Over Congress
Increase DecreaseOctober 9, 2007 (LPAC)--Reports in the Washington Post today that Senate Majority leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has assured the private equity funds that taxes on their managers' incomes will not be raised, has prompted EIRNS to take another look at the nature of the Hedge/Private Equity Fund lobby. According to the Post, Reid has promised to table a Senate bill introduced by Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT) and Charles Grassley (R-IA); and a similar House bill introduced by Reps. Charles Rangel (D-NY), and Sander Levin (D-MI), would raise the tax level to a "normal" corporate income tax level. The private equity/hedge fund lobby has been hysterically trying to stop these bills, and now, reportedly, Reid has capitulated.

How deep into Congress does the vulture penetration go?

In the case of Democrat Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), he hired Moses Mercado, a lobbyist for the vulture funds, Carlyle Group and Blackstone Group, to his campaign. Mercado's firm, Ogilvy Government Relations is the main lobbying agency for the hedge funds and private equity funds attacking Congressional attempts to tax them. The Barack Obama Presidential campaign announced in late September that it would hire Mercad. Obama's campaign fundraising efforts began last December, 2006, when billionaire George Soros convened a council of investment bankers to back him.

Moses Mercado is a former top aide to DNC chairman Howard Dean. Mercado's insider status with Dean -- as their faction squeezed funds to Democratic Congressional candidates despite warnings from Lyndon LaRouche and the Bill Clinton forces -- has been publicly lauded by Mercado's lobbying boss, Wayne Berman. Berman's Ogilvy firm, formerly known as the Federalist Group, was one of the two centers of the Tom DeLay/Dick Cheney corruptionst machine in Washington.

In another case, former professional basketball star Earvin "Magic" Johnson is currently campaigning against proposed legislation to raise the taxes of hedge fund/private equity fund managers. Johnson is a principal spokesman for the Access to Capital Coalition, formed September 7, 2007 with money from such giant funds as Carlyle Group and Blackstone Group. The Coalition is billed as representing minority groups and women who happen to be operators of such funds. At the same time Johnson raises funds for Hillary Clinton's Presidential candidacy.

Magic Johnson owns his own private equity enterprise, which is part of a billion dollar partnership called Canyon-Johnson Urban Funds. This is managed by Canyon Capital Advisers, a hedge and reality fund unit spun off from Michael Milken's operation within Drexel Burnham Lambert. When Milken went to prison for his junk bond outrages, the men who helped him shape his deals, Joshua Friedman and Mitchell Julis, formed Canyon. Friedman and Julis still appear as speakers at Milken's investment events.

[jr2007sc]

Though I'm not at all progressively excited about it, I think Richardson/Edwards is able to win the 08' election. I don't think America is ready to vote for a woman President, unfortunately, and from my progressive point of view, I would never vote for Hillary. America does have a racist streak, so, I don't think America is ready to vote for any Presidential candidate who is non-caucasian either, unfortunately too. America is very far away from voting for the best, the brightest and the most politically progressive.

Eh...I would vote for an African American woman in a heartbeat....if she was closely aligned with my political/social/economic views. And I'm a (gasp) conservative.

[ababof]

FDR,

As it was very interesting I used your previous post while discussing with a friend (who teaches history and geography) and we quickly searched free french sources about your "Fund vultures" topic. Eventually... could it be possible to share YOUR sources ?

[FDRfollower]

FDR,

As it was very interesting I used your previous post while discussing with a friend (who teaches history and geography) and we quickly searched free french sources about your "Fund vultures" topic. Eventually... could it be possible to share YOUR sources ?

I don't think googling "vulture" funds will find you much. :) In Germany, "locusts" have become synonymous with speculative financial companies who have been buying up companies in order to strip them of as much income as possible.

For instance, a recent case of Cerebus, a hedge fund named after the three headed dog that guarded Hades, has bought Chrysler and is laying off a significant amount of the workforce and looting the pension and health plan. The merger mania that dominated the markets recently has run into problems with the collapse of the international financial system (disguised as the sub-prime mortgage crisis) and the means of running up insane amounts of debt in order to speculate like crazy.

Here is a French article that might help you. article (http://www.solidariteetprogres.org/spip/sp_article.php3?id_article=2602)

[FDRfollower]

Interesting. I attempted to post some reality on a YouTube Obama video of him speaking at the Jefferson/Jackson dinner, mostly listing his voting record in order to cut through the fan/groupie comments :rolleyes: and was immediately blacklisted from the channel and my posts were erased. How democratic.

[ababof]

No, no,

it was just about the support Carlyle or Blackstone and other brought. In fact supports on both (all) sides are interesting. About who does what in France, we can know if we want to, that's not difficult.
But getting just significant reliable facts in your medias is uneasy. If I watch something like Foxnews and CNN I will soon stop using English for another 10 years or so, for my nerves won't resist. Excepting the Washington Post, I am not far from growing an epidermic reaction when I read the newspapers. But it also takes time and I am lazy. That is the dilemma.

[NeoCon Newbie]

Obama is a moron and anyone who votes for him doesn't care about America. If a Liberal becomes president America is doomed we need another conservative like Duncan Hunter or Mit Romney.Guliani is a RHINO. If it is time for a black president then let it be Alan Keys.Ann Coulter would make a good female president.

[CHUQ]

Huh? Hunter is a snooze, Mitt is a game show host, and Coulter is a.......you fill in the blank.

Why do conservs attack people, yes I did it above but that is my opinion, not an attack like He is a moron.....why does it deteriorate to that?

[Thelonious]

Huh? Hunter is a snooze, Mitt is a game show host, and Coulter is a.......you fill in the blank.

Why do conservs attack people, yes I did it above but that is my opinion, not an attack like He is a moron.....why does it deteriorate to that?

Chuck,
That was by far the most intelligent post NewBie has ever produced. It is also the first time I've ever seen him use punctuation.

Congratulations Newbie!

By the way, I sincerely hope either Coulter or Alan Keys gets the Republican nomination.
:)

[CHUQ]

Thanx, I do have my moments...lol.

I also heard that Nader has come out in support of Obama. Will that be a boost to Obama? I think not.

[JamesP]

I'm coming around to the conclusion that Obama may be the best candidate.
What he says below is obvious and....
the contrast of

- Obama (something fresh and new in American politics, yet less controversial & divisive than Clinton)

vs

- the old tired, war-horse: "been around forever", "Grandpa" Mccain

may be the Dems best opportunity.




Obama says GOP will have dirt on Clinton
By NEDRA PICKLER, Associated Press Writer


CHICAGO - Sen. Barack Obama predicted Wednesday that Republicans will have a dump truck full of dirt to unload on Hillary Rodham Clinton if the former first lady wins the Democratic presidential nomination, and said he offers the party its best hope of winning the White House this fall.

[Jennifer_SFBA]

How about a Barack Obama/Dennis Kucinich ticket or maybe a Barack Obama/Russ Finegold or Barack Obama/Bernie Sanders ticket or, getting creative, maybe even a Barack Obama/Robert F. Kennedy Jr.or Barack Obama/Mike Gravel ticket or some other leading third party candidate for Vice Presaident?

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/edcut/?pid=306816

[heyliberal]

A Vote for Obama is a vote aganist America

[Magi2]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/15/AR2008041503586.html?nav=rss_politics

Democrats Willing to Let Battle Continue
Poll Shows Gains in Key Areas for Obama


By Dan Balz and Jon Cohen
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, April 16, 2008; Page A01

Sen. Barack Obama holds a 10-point lead over Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton when Democrats are asked whom they would prefer to see emerge as the party's presidential nominee, but there is little public pressure to bring the long and increasingly heated contest to an end, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.


He now has a 2-to-1 edge on who is considered more electable in a general contest -- a major reversal from the last poll -- and has dramatically reduced a large Clinton lead on which of the two is the "stronger leader."

While Clinton retains a big edge over Obama on experience, public impressions of her have taken a sharply negative turn. Today, more Americans have an unfavorable view of her than at any time since The Post and ABC began asking the question, in 1992. Impressions of her husband, former president Bill Clinton, also have grown negative by a small margin.

In the new poll, 54 percent said they have an unfavorable view of Sen. Clinton, up from 40 percent a few days after she won the New Hampshire primary in early January. Her favorability rating has dropped among both Democrats and independents over the past three months, although her overall such rating among Democrats remains high. Nearly six in 10 independents now view her unfavorably.

Obama's favorability rating also has declined over the same period but remains, on balance, more positive than negative.

The findings come as the two contenders prepare to meet tonight in Philadelphia for their first debate in more than a month and their final direct encounter before Tuesday's Pennsylvania primary. The exchange will begin at 8 p.m. Eastern time and will air on ABC News.

A likely centerpiece of the debate will be a controversy over comments Obama made April 6 at a San Francisco fundraiser in which he described residents of economically hard-hit small towns as "bitter" and said they "cling" to guns or religion. The Clinton campaign quickly seized the opportunity to tag Obama as an elitist who is out of touch with the values of rural America.

Obama said that while he may have chosen his words poorly, he was correct in saying that many Americans in these communities are rightly angry about the failure of the government and politicians to do more to improve economic conditions in their areas. His campaign also released an ad yesterday that criticizes Clinton. The spot opens with a narrator saying: "There's a reason people are rejecting Hillary Clinton's attacks. Because the same old Washington politics won't lower the price of gas or help our struggling economy. Barack Obama will represent all Americans."

[ababof]

From abroad, Obama brings a touch of dignity in this campaign that we have not seen before. Elected or not, that's a change.
It's not just a feeling. The world IS looking at you.

[Jennifer_SFBA]

Ababof, I am pleased to hear of France's, Europe's, breath of fresh air thoughts for America and the world. Thank you for sharing that insight.

[Jennifer_SFBA]

Billery and O'bama recently visited the Bilderburg group at an official Bilderberg meeting held in the US state of Virginia.

Vote Green Party

http://www.infowars.com/?p=2560

Hillary & Obama In Secret Bilderberg Rendezvous

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Friday, June 6, 2008

According to news reports, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton went out of their way to hold their long-awaited private meeting in a very specific location - not at Hillary’s mansion in Washington - but in Northern Virginia, which also just happens to be the scene of the 2008 Bilderberg meeting.




Both Hillary and Obama have deep rooted connections to the Bilderberg elitists.

Obama’s spokesman Robert Gibbs told the media that Obama and Clinton held a private meeting last night but he refused to disclose where it taken place, except that it was not at Clinton’s home in Washington, as had been widely reported. Hillary campaign managers also refused to disclose the location of the rendezvous.

"Reporters traveling with Obama sensed something might be happening between the pair when they arrived at Dulles International Airport after an event in Northern Virginia and Obama was not aboard the airplane," reports the Associated Press.

Dulles just happens to be walking distance from the Westfields Marriott hotel in Chantilly where Henry Kissinger, David Rockefeller and the rest of the Bilderberg globalists are convening.

"Asked at the time about the Illinois senator’s whereabouts, Gibbs smiled and declined to comment," the reports adds.

What is the only political "event" taking place in Northern Virginia at the moment? The Bilderberg Group meeting of course. Rather than taking the easier option of meeting at Clinton’s Washington mansion, Obama and Hillary went out of their way to grace the Bilderberg elitists with their presence.

The neo-liberal website Wonkette, which had previously ridiculed "conspiracy theorists" for ascribing power to Bilderberg, seemed to take a somewhat different tone when it made the connection between Obama and Hillary’s meeting and the Bilderberg Group.

"Guess who had a very private talky-talk in (maybe) romantic Northern Virginia tonight, probably at the Bilderberg Group meeting in Chantilly? Your Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton!," states the blog. "They really met and talked, in private, Thursday night. And really, it sounds like they did this at that creepy Bilderberg Group meeting, which is happening now, and which is so secret that nobody will admit they’re going, even though everybody who is anybody goes to Bilderberg."

To have the potential future President and Vice-President of America attend a conference that debunkers have dismissed as a mere talking shop for old white men once again underscores the real influence that Bilderberg enjoys.




Not one U.S. corporate media outlet has made the connection between the location of the Bilderberg Group conference this year and Obama and Hillary’s decision to venture out to Chantilly for their confidential "tet a tet".

Not one U.S. corporate media outlet has yet uttered one word about 125 of the world’s most influential power brokers meeting behind closed doors to discuss the future of the planet on U.S. soil - while being met by the probable future President of the United States.

Both Hillary and Obama have deep rooted connections to the Bilderberg elitists.

Bill Clinton attended the 1991 meeting in Germany shortly before becoming President and he attended again in 1999 when the conference was held in Sintra, Portugal (despite Clinton’s lie that he had not attended in 15 years).

Hillary herself was rumored to have attended the 2006 meeting in Ottawa, Canada.

As we reported last month, Bilderberg luminary and top corporate elitist James A. Johnson will select Democratic candidate Barack Obama’s running mate for the 2008 election and in turn potentially act as kingmaker for America’s future President.

Johnson also selected John Kerry’s running mate John Edwards in 2004 after Edwards had impressed Bilderberg elitists Henry Kissinger and David Rockefeller with a speech he gave at the globalist confab in Italy that year.

Johnson, who attended last year’s Bilderberg meeting in Turkey, is a representative for Friends of Bilderberg, an offshoot group that organizes Bilderberg’s annual meeting.

Hillary and Obama’s attendance of the 2008 Bilderberg meeting, and the complete failure of the mainstream media to report on the fact, once again betrays the super-secretive nature and influential reputation that the 54-year-old organization still maintains.

[Jennifer_SFBA]

Who is James A. Johnson, member of the committee to select Obama's VP?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_A._Johnson_%28businessman%29

I am posting the latest on James A. Johnson below:

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/06/11/obama_defense_of_johnson_raise.html

Dan Balz's Take

Obama Defense of Johnson Raises Questions

James A. Johnson, vice chairman of Perseus LLC and former chief executive officer of Fannie Mae, speaks at an editorial meeting in Washington, June 4, 2008. Johnson is part of a small group of advisers helping to vet potential vice presidential candidates for Barack Obama. (Bloomberg News)

By Dan Balz

The most important decision Barack Obama will make between now and the November election is the selection of a vice presidential running mate. That makes all the more remarkable his effort Tuesday to suggest that the people he has put in charge of helping make the decision are somehow not really part of his campaign.

Obama is on the defensive over his selection of James A. Johnson, the former CEO of Fannie Mae, to help lead the vice presidential search process, a role he played for John F. Kerry four years ago.

Johnson is drawing fire over his jumbo home loans from Countrywide Financial, a major actor in the subprime mortgage mess, that may have been below market rates. The loans were first reported by the Wall Street Journal. Johnson also has drawn criticism in the past for his role in generous compensation packages to executives of companies on whose boards he served.

At a news conference in St. Louis yesterday, Obama was asked about Johnson and the fact that the candidate has often criticized the activities of Countrywide. Rather than defend his choice, he sought to suggest that the role Johnson is playing is only tangential to his campaign and that it is impossible for the campaign to vet the vetters.

"Jim Johnson has a very discrete task, as does Eric Holder [another member of the VP search team], and that is simply to gather up information about potential vice presidential candidates," Obama responded. "They're performing the job well. It's a volunteer, unpaid position and they're giving me information, and I will then exercise judgment in terms of who I'll want to select as a vice presidential candidate. So these are folks who are working for me, not people who I have assigned to a particular job in the future administration, and ultimately, my assumption is, is that this is a discrete task they'll be performing over the next two months."

The distinctions Obama tried to draw raise other questions. Is he suggesting that Johnson, who is not paid, is exempt from campaign strictures that might apply to the lowliest paid staffers? Is he suggesting that Johnson, while overseeing some of the most sensitive work underway in the campaign, will act merely as a transmission belt for information scooped up from any and all available sources? Is he suggesting he would not select Johnson for a role in his administration? Or that different rules would apply to those he might select than those who play central roles in the campaign?

Johnson can certainly defend himself, if he needs defending. He is a skilled and discreet Washington insider and veteran political powerbroker whose advice and judgment are valued by people like Obama and Kerry and scores of other powerful politicians and business executives. Nor are all the details of the Countrywide transactions known, although the Journal story said Johnson received a favorable interest rate. A lawyer for Johnson told the Journal that the loans were within standard practice in the industry, given someone "of Mr. Johnson's background."

All of this will be sorted out in the days ahead. But in the meantime, for Obama to suggest that Johnson is floating in some outer orbit of his campaign raises questions about the candidate's willingness to deal forthrightly with controversy. Presidential candidates long have turned to trusted and loyal advisers and potential administration officials to help run vice presidential search operations. Is there any reason to think Obama has not done the same?

The last two presidents tapped the advisers who oversaw the vice presidential selection process to play enormously important roles in their administration. Warren Christopher ran Bill Clinton's search process in 1992 and ended up as secretary of state. Dick Cheney ran the process for George W. Bush and in a remarkable twist ended up as the vice president -- perhaps the most powerful ever. It is not unreasonable to think that Johnson could end up playing a significant role in an Obama administration.

There are many ways Obama and his team could be responding to this, but they are doing what they've done in the past when turbulence hits, which is to hunker down, stick to their talking points and wait for the storm to pass, which it often has.

David Axelrod, Obama's senior strategist, echoed the candidate during a Wednesday morning interview on MSNBC. "He's a volunteer and the job is just to gather information, period," he said of Johnson. He went on to say, "He's not leading the vetting. There's a committee that's vetting these candidates. He's part of that committee."

It isn't clear whether the uproar over Johnson is a passing storm or a more serious problem for the Obama campaign. For now, the campaign has decided to treat it as a minor annoyance that will soon disappear. But the candidate's response has raised questions about the candidate himself that could well linger past the moment.

[Jennifer_SFBA]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/24/AR2008062401331.html?nav=rss_politics

What do we know about 9/11 Report and those who were on the 9/11 Commission Committee deciding whose testimony would be included in the 9/11 Commission Report and whose testimony would be excluded, whose testimony would be taken in secret and whose testimony would be taken in public?

"... Obama -- who has made a determined effort to shore up his credentials on national security since clinching the Democratic nomination, arguing that the United States is less safe now than before President Bush took office -- wasted no time in trying to counter Black's statement. (NOTE:) Obama dispatched Richard Ben-Veniste, a member of the bipartisan 9/11 Commission, to hold a conference call with reporters in which he called Black's comments "a candid and very disappointing glimpse into the thinking of one of McCain's closest advisers." He did not directly call for Black to step aside. ..."

"THE TERRORISM ISSUE
McCain Adviser May Have Struck a Nerve

Sen. Barack Obama and his surrogates continued to criticize Charles R. Black Jr., a top adviser to Sen. John McCain, on Tuesday for saying a terrorist attack before the November election would help the presumptive Republican nominee. But behind their protests lay a question that has dogged Democrats since Sept. 11, 2001: Was Black speaking the truth?

This Story

THE TERRORISM ISSUE: McCain Adviser May Have Struck a Nerve

The Trail: Team Obama Keeps Heat on Over Black Comments
Channel '08: Clinton Made Comments Similar to Black's
"I don't think anyone knows the answer to this question," said Tad Devine, a senior strategist on Sen. John F. Kerry's 2004 presidential campaign, which confronted the same internal debate. "On the one hand, Republicans say they made America safe. That argument goes by the wayside if there's an attack. On the other hand, an attack would change the entire framework of this election."

Black's comment to Fortune magazine that a terrorist attack "certainly would be a big advantage" roiled the presidential campaign for a second straight day. Obama -- who has made a determined effort to shore up his credentials on national security since clinching the Democratic nomination, arguing that the United States is less safe now than before President Bush took office -- wasted no time in trying to counter Black's statement. Obama dispatched Richard Ben-Veniste, a member of the bipartisan 9/11 Commission, to hold a conference call with reporters in which he called Black's comments "a candid and very disappointing glimpse into the thinking of one of McCain's closest advisers." He did not directly call for Black to step aside.


"I think the remarks were so out of place that they call for some recalibration in the thinking and perhaps a greater adherence to principle here in staying away from the politics of fear," Ben-Veniste said.

McCain has distanced himself from Black's comments, saying, "If he said that -- and I don't know the context -- I strenuously disagree."

But radio host Rush Limbaugh said aloud what other Republicans have been saying privately for months. Black's comments were "obvious," Limbaugh said yesterday on his program as he criticized McCain for distancing himself from them.

Limbaugh said in no uncertain terms that Obama would be weak in the face of terrorism. "We know damn well it's Obama who would seek to appease our enemies. We know damn well it's McCain who won't put up with another attack," Limbaugh said.

To this day, Kerry (D-Mass.) has blamed an Osama bin Laden videotape released on Oct. 29, 2004, for his defeat in the election the following week. And McCain, while campaigning in Connecticut for Rep. Christopher Shays that week in 2004, described the bin Laden video as a boost for Bush. "I think it's very helpful to President Bush," McCain said at the time. "It focuses America's attention on the war on terrorism. I'm not sure if it was intentional or not, but I think it does have an effect."

Devine said Kerry campaign officials always feared an "October surprise" -- the capture of bin Laden, a terrorist attack or some other maneuver that would thrust terrorism into the forefront of voters' minds.

"We certainly were concerned that an administration that had shown itself willing to do almost anything would do almost anything," he said. "We weren't planning around it. There were no meetings around an October surprise, but were there discussions? Certainly."

Teresa Heinz Kerry, the wife of the 2004 nominee, went so far as to tell a business group in Phoenix late in the campaign that she "wouldn't be surprised if [bin Laden] appeared in the next month."

In his first debate with President Bush that year, Kerry tried to confront the issue head-on, accusing the president of a "colossal error of judgment" in "taking his eye off" bin Laden with the invasion of Iraq."

[Jennifer_SFBA]

Continued:

"Page 2 of 2

McCain Adviser May Have Struck a Nerve

But the fight against terrorism remained Bush's key strength, even with an electorate that had begun to sour on his stewardship of the economy and his conduct of the Iraq war.

This Story

THE TERRORISM ISSUE: McCain Adviser May Have Struck a Nerve

The Trail: Team Obama Keeps Heat on Over Black Comments
Channel '08: Clinton Made Comments Similar to Black's
Obama advisers insisted yesterday that the Democrats can win the terrorism argument this year, even if there is an attack.

"I think the American people have gotten sensitized to the politicization of the war on terror by the Republican Party," said Rep. Artur Davis (D-Ala.), an Obama adviser. "Republicans have gone to the well too often, and the American people are seeing through it."

Obama has already begun the process of building a profile on national security issues. Last week's appearance with former military officers came after he had talked tough about al-Qaeda and promised action against the group's sanctuaries in western Pakistan. He has also begun a shift to the political center, saying he would support a compromise bill to authorize warrantless wiretapping of terrorist suspects over the strenuous protests of civil libertarians and party liberals. The Senate will vote to break a Democratic filibuster of the measure today.

"If something like an October surprise would happen, it would remind people about many of the Bush administration failures, that Osama bin Laden is on the loose, that al-Qaeda is stronger, that we've not been successful in pursuing foreign policy objectives," said former congressman Timothy J. Roemer (D-Ind.), another former 9/11 Commission member and an Obama homeland security adviser. "And I think those are strikes in favor of our argument for change."

But the sensitivity is still there. Davis, saying he was speaking personally and not for the campaign, advised Obama to choose a seasoned foreign policy veteran with strong national security credentials as his running mate. He mentioned former senators Sam Nunn of Georgia and Bob Graham of Florida.

Staff researcher Madonna Lebling contributed to this report."

[Jennifer_SFBA]

Danzig, (long standing criminal) Armitage, Gates and Obama connected:

http://m.npr.org/news.jsp?key=399315&rc=po&p=0

"Relevant to the power elite’s “managers” of Obama, one of his prominent advisors looking for his vice-presidential running mate is Richard Danzig (Rhodes Scholar and former Rockefeller Foundation Fellow, and law clerk for Rhodes Scholar and U.S. Supreme Court Justice Byron White). Danzig was also Secretary of the Navy under President Clinton – so much for Obama’s theme of “change,” about which we constantly hear."

http://revolutionradio.org/2008/07/0...have-a-choice/

[Magi2]

Hanging Tough with Obama When Obama is Not Hanging Tough
Submitted by mark karlin on Mon, 07/07/2008 - 6:01am. EditorBlog
THE BUZZFLASH EDITOR'S BLOG

Mark Karlin

Editor and Publisher

http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/editorblog/101
July 7, 2008

As I've mentioned more than once, BuzzFlash is the oldest and largest progressive Internet news and commentary site between the two Coasts. We have the perspective of the Heartland -- and we were founded on a premise that only when we hang tough for Constitutional values will we prevail.

The most basic and fundamental message of BuzzFlash -- long before the other sites that now get branded on television all the time (we were founded in May of 2000) -- was that you don't win victories by laying down like a doormat; and you don't sell out the Constitution, one person-one vote, economic justice and the energy future of our nation by cowering in a corner every time that the Republicans pull a national security scare.

Of course, there are other factors at work, like the DLC, which have made many Democrats as complicit as Republicans when it comes to voting with big corporations because of the money channeled to their campaigns by "K" Street lobbyists.

Barack Obama offered a vision of an end to this cowardice and betrayal.

We believe that he still does.

I want to make it emphatically clear that I and BuzzFlash oppose Obama's position on the latest House FISA bill; on "redefining" an Iraq pullout; on giving a green light to the unprecedented Supreme Court gift to the NRA; and on his "carve out" of exceptions to late term abortions that would exclude the mental health of a woman.

These are not progressive perspectives (although the Iraq statement was consistent with his prior qualifications -- and those of Hillary Clinton). We oppose his stances as stated above, and will continue to do so. As I have often stated, we are beholden to principles, not to an individual. As a grassroots organizer, Obama, we suspect, understands that.

There's been a lot of Internet speculation about why Obama made these counter-progressive comments. Is he following the advice of his strategists because he needs to ease the concerns of key voting blocks in new states that they plan to possibly pick up (e.g., Colorado, New Mexico, Montana, Georgia, Virginia, etc.)? In that case, Obama loses some of his luster as being the "genuine" candidate. Or are these nuances that Obama actually believes? Or are they a lot of "dog days of summer" attention focused on issues that will pass once he becomes president and appoints Supreme Court justices who will lean progressive, along with having a heavily Democratic Congress, including the Senate?

The answer: probably a little of all of the above.

Being in Chicago, as we have said, we have worked with Obama in the past on some advocacy issues, such as putting an end to Payday Loans (although we have absolutely no connection with his campaign; we're talking about when he was a state senator). We also know a lot of people who know him from Hyde Park -- both socially and politically -- and elected officials who worked with him in the legislature.

Most of them will tell you this: if he has a core center upon which he will not compromise, it is related to Constitutional issues. We wager that he and his campaign know that Harry Reid doesn't have the votes to maintain a filibuster on the House FISA bill, so Obama is taking the chance to innoculate himself from the only thing the Republicans got to run against him; i.e., that he is a furtive Muslim sympathizer. As BuzzFlash has speculated before, we think that too many Democrats were given classified briefings about the FISA illegalities and would be implicated if Bush and Cheney were held to account. As for Telecom Immunity, show us the money. When you have the Democratic head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Jay Rockefeller, cheerleading for Telecom Immunity, you know that the fix is in.

Do we justify such "business as usual" political moves? No, but we are going to hold our judgment on Obama, barring some radical departure from his primary positions, until he is elected. This guy is committed to the Constitution and BuzzFlash and the rest of the netroots are going to be all over him like a panther on the prowl if he doesn't roll back the Bush usurpations of the Constitution and our civil liberties. The same goes for abortion.

Because while he's made these objectionable statements, he's also been "framing" the national security issue in a way that Democrats have not done before; he is boxing McCain in on the definition of what makes our nation secure. That is the larger battle that has to be won.

skip




So I'll "hang tough".

:thumbup::sunny:

[Jennifer_SFBA]

Obama and conservative Democrat Feinstein vote fOR H.R. 6304 (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 ); A bill to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to establish a procedure for authorizing certain acquisitions of foreign intelligence, and for other purposes, Clinton votes against. Will Clinton be Obama's VP?

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00168

ACLU's "liberal" Constitutional position on H.R. 6304 is as follows:

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/spying/fisa.html

http://www.commondreams.org/news2007/1211-20.htm

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), born after the Watergate scandal, establishes how the government can secretly eavesdrop on Americans in their own country in intelligence investigations. It was originally passed to allow the government to collect foreign intelligence information involving communications with "agents of foreign powers."

Today, however, the federal government is exploiting this once-narrow exception to make an end-run around the Constitution. The USA Patriot Act, passed by Congress in 2001 and re-authorized in 2006, expanded FISA to allow the government to obtain the personal records of ordinary Americans from libraries and Internet Service Providers, even when they have no connection to terrorism. Recent amendments in the Protect America Act authorized the government to use FISA to get around the constitutional requirement that it show a judge that it has probable cause of involvement with a foreign country or terror group before it eavesdrops on a communication.

Although the Patriot Act was rushed into law just weeks after 9/11, a congressional investigation into the attacks did not find that FISA's limits on government surveillance contributed to the government's failure to prevent the attacks. Instead, the investigation pointed to fundamental organizational breakdowns in the intelligence community and the government's failure to make effective use of the surveillance powers already at its disposal. Despite overwhelming evidence that FISA did not need to be expanded, Congress moved to broaden the reach of the law and weakened its protection of Americans' freedom and privacy.

Even as the White House lobbied to expand the scope of FISA, we now know that President Bush disregarded the rule of law when he authorized the National Security Agency to spy on ordinary Americans' phone calls and e-mails without the warrant FISA requires. Shockingly, Congress voted to temporarily condone this abuse of power in August 2007 with legislation sanctioning this illegal operation. Congress stood up to pressure from the White House and allowed the law to expire in February. In the weeks thereafter, the House passed a much improved, though still flawed, bill which ensures judicial oversight of domestic surveillance and provides both the telecommunications companies and their consumers with access to the courts.

Through legislative advocacy and litigation, the ACLU actively opposes efforts in Congress to further broaden the government's power to spy on innocent Americans who are not conspiring with foreign powers, and support proposals to increase judicial and congressional oversight of FISA surveillance and restore much-needed checks and balances. We hope that you will join us in that effort.

The "liberal" Lawyers Guild's "liberal" position on H.R. 6304 is as follows:

http://www.marjoriecohn.com/2008/02/national-lawyers-guild-condemns-senate.html

http://nlg.org/news/index.php

Founded in 1937 as an alternative to the American Bar Association, which did not admit people of color, the National Lawyers Guild is the oldest and largest public interest/human rights bar organization in the United States. Its headquarters are in New York and it has chapters in every state.

Responding to fear-mongering by the Bush administration, the Senate voted on February 12 to give retroactive immunity to the telecommunications companies that have turned over our telephone and Internet communications to the government. These companies have violated several laws, including the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), Title III, the Communications Act, and the Stored Communications Act, as well as the First and Fourth Amendments to the Constitution.

The Bush administration has been illegally engaging in warrantless surveillance since early 2001, through its "Terrorist Surveillance Program." Over 40 lawsuits against the telecommunications companies challenging the legality of the program are pending.

On the eve of Congress's Labor Day recess last year, the Bush administration had rammed that the "Protect America Act" through a Congress still fearful of appearing soft on terror. It was a 6-month fix to the 1978 FISA, which didn't anticipate that foreign intelligence communications would one day run through Internet providers in the United States. But the temporary law went further than simply fixing that glitch in FISA; it granted immunity to telecommunications companies that provided consumer telephone and computer data to the government.

The day before the Senate took up this issue, Vice President Dick Cheney invoked the memory of September 11, 2001 twelve times in his address to the Heritage Foundation, and urged Congress to make the Act permanent. In the face of lawsuits against the telecom companies, Attorney General Michael Mukasey described the need for the companies to defend against litigation as "an enormous burden." Indeed, defending these lawsuits has likely cut in to their enormous profits.

Although President George W. Bush claims that making the Act permanent was critical to keeping us safe, he threatens to veto the bill unless it includes the immunity provision. Apparently protecting corporate profits trumps national security.

The House of Representatives passed a bill without immunity for the telecoms. The two bills will have to be harmonized. The National Lawyers Guild urges Congress to adopt the House version that omits immunity. Litigation against the telecommunications companies is the only remaining avenue of accountability for the administration's lawbreaking.

[Magi2]

I'm still "hanging tough" and here's some thought from P.M. Carpenter which keeps me believing in hope for change and The American Dream possible once again with LIBERTY and JUSTICE for ALL!:

http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/carpenter/123

skip

But progressives might want to stop and first consider the presidential history of the founder of modern progressivism: Franklin Delano Roosevelt. For he, too, possessed no isms, no ideology.

Just yesterday I was rereading an excerpt from Frances Perkins' The Roosevelt I Knew (Perkins was FDR's secretary of labor, the first woman to sit on a presidential cabinet), in which one short passage nicely summarized what political historians have marveled at for decades:

"A superficial young reporter once said to Roosevelt in my presence, 'Mr. President, are you a communist?'" The answer, of course, was "No," and the same to each subsequent question as to Roosevelt's socialism or capitalism.

"Well," persisted the reporter, "what is your philosophy then?" To which Roosevelt responded -- in a "puzzled" manner, observed Perkins -- "Philosophy? Philosophy? I am a Christian and a Democrat -- that's all."

According to Perkins, quite accurately, "Those two words expressed ... just about what he was" -- the utter non-embodiment of "political and economic radicalism." As she further noted: "He was willing to do experimentally whatever was necessary [my italics] to promote the Golden Rule." And that was just about it: in short, human decency, pragmatically pursued.

Roosevelt's "philosophy" congealed no further than that -- and that gave ideological progressives of his era an incurable case of ulcers. He repeatedly frustrated and disappointed and downright pissed off his political friends on the left, because he refused to be corraled into an ideological box, one in which he could simply press a button and a predetermined answer to any prevailing problem would pop out.

It would be wise for contemporary progressives to study the founder and foundations of their modern political "movement" -- which, if it had any real ideology at all, it was only that of issue-by-issue pragmat-ism.

Please respond to P.M.'s commentary by leaving comments below and sharing them with the BuzzFlash community. For personal questions or comments you can contact him at fifthcolumnistmail@gmail.com

THE FIFTH COLUMNIST by P.M. Carpenter



and:
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/07/10/10247/

Some progressives, now disaffected, might consider the prospect of Obama falling short on Election Day to be his problem, not ours. But this isn’t about Obama. It’s about whether the levers of power in the Executive Branch, and the Supreme Court along with it, are going to be redelivered into the hands of the right wing for yet another four years.

We’re facing the historic imperative of keeping McCain out of the White House. If major progressive change is going to be feasible during the next several years, defeating McCain in November is necessary. And insufficient. The insufficiency does not negate the necessity.

Under a McCain presidency, we’d be back to the square one where we’ve found ourselves since January 2001. Putting Obama in the White House would not by any means ensure progressive change, but under his presidency the grassroots would have an opportunity to create it.

Along the way, let’s strive to eliminate disillusionment by dispensing with illusions. No one who is a presidential candidate can proceed to overcome corporate power or the warfare state. The pervasive and huge problems that have proved to be so destructive are deep, structural and embedded in the political economy. The changes most worth believing in are the ones that social movements can make possible.


:sunny:

[Jennifer_SFBA]

In spite of Vincent Bugliosi's latest book, "The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder," Obama says, ""I think you reserve impeachment for grave, grave breeches, and intentional breeches of the president's authority," and "I believe if we began impeachment proceedings we will be engulfed in more of the politics that has made Washington dysfunction." "We would once again, rather than attending to the people's business, be engaged in a tit-for-tat, back-and-forth, nonstop circus."

The link below contains an except from Vincent Bugliosi's book, "The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/vincent-bugliosi/the-prosecution-of-george_b_102427.html

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/06/28/america/NA-POL-US-Obama-No-Impeachment.php

International Herald Americas

Obama says despite shortcomings of Bush administration, impeachment is not acceptable

The Associated PressPublished: June 28, 2007

WASHINGTON: Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama laid out list of political shortcomings he sees in the Bush administration but said he opposes impeachment for either President George W. Bush or Vice President Dick Cheney.

Obama said he would not back such a move, although he has been distressed by the "loose ethical standards, the secrecy and incompetence" of a "variety of characters" in the administration.

"There's a way to bring an end to those practices, you know: vote the bums out," the presidential candidate said, without naming Bush or Cheney. "That's how our system is designed."

The term for Bush and Cheney ends on Jan. 20, 2009. Bush cannot constitutionally run for a third term, and Cheney has said he will not run to succeed Bush.

Obama, a Harvard law school graduate and former lecturer on constitutional law at the University of Chicago, said impeachment should not be used as a standard political tool.

Today in Americas

Obama says he would not hesitate to overrule American commanders Venezuela and Russia to coordinate on energyA private, blunter Bush declares, 'Wall Street got drunk'

"I think you reserve impeachment for grave, grave breeches, and intentional breeches of the president's authority," he said.

"I believe if we began impeachment proceedings we will be engulfed in more of the politics that has made Washington dysfunction," he added. "We would once again, rather than attending to the people's business, be engaged in a tit-for-tat, back-and-forth, nonstop circus."

Obama, son of a Kenyan father and American mother, spoke at a weekly constituent breakfast he sponsors with Illinois' other senator, Dick Durbin. He was asked about impeachment.

[lynchbug]

In correspondence with Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA), she stated that she considered an impeachment as being "too divisive" and in substance, something our nation could not withstand at present. So, she takes much the same route as Sen. Obama.

Congresswoman Mary Bono (R-CA) declined to reply to an earlier letter supporting H.R. 333, the Articles of Impeachment for Vice President Cheney.

With such flagrant "high crimes and misdemeanors" being discussed across this country, one has to wonder why is Congress so lenient with such a man, while only a decade ago, they had a President under trial for a dalliance with a staffer? (Not to minimize workplace sexual harassment by any intent.)

When I go full circle of hypothesizing about this, the inference seems to be there must be some duress involved. Though how nearly 600 people charged with the defense of Liberty could be swayed by such duress leads to frightening further imaginations and inferences. But what else could be stopping them from carrying out their oaths? Of course, many were in their DC residences at the time of the 9/11 event, and so, were no doubt terrified to a degree slightly higher than the rest of the country.

I do not believe future Senator Obama was in the DC area the day of the event, so, I would not grant him traumatic stress as I would those with longer tenure.

Of course, then, as an alternative thought, one might infer complicity as a reasoned explanation of the questionable behavior of all under discussion.

And yes, if Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) can see the truth of the telecom immunity as an impairment of the Peoples Right to seek justice and redress, in fact, stating that it is the only such redress possible for the blanket violation of the Fourth Amendment, and a reason to vote "Nay" on H.R. 6304, why does Sen. Obama, Constitutional Scholar, think the Bill (which he originally was to filibuster) now deserved his "Yea" vote?

I would carefully research the platforms and candidates of the minor parties with diligence, although a daunting task in light of the two party coverage deemed adequate by the Corporate Consolidated Media. Of course, any vote, again, must receive "defensive" consideration, as a McCain victory would mean the end of the world as we know it, IMHO.

I hope, but cannot be sure, that an Obama victory would bring a different result, as the young Senator coninues to gaf on the side of Tyranny.

However, I keep thinking of the thread here with the title "Equal Time For McCain" and I shudder at my horrible imaginings about eight years of his tenure in the White House.

[Magi2]

http://www.opednews.com/articles/McCAIN-PLAYS-RACE-CARD---A-by-Allen-L-Roland-080802-393.html


skip

Excerpts:

" I want to take a little opinion poll.

If you think America ought to keep going in the same direction George Bush and Dick Cheney have been taking us in stand up.

Now, stand up if you think it’s time we had a president who’s going to fight for national health care, sign the Employee Free Choice Act, strengthen OSHA, defend Social Security, end the war, and protect American jobs?

Well, congratulations -- you just answered the question that’s stumped all the commentators and columnists and consultants in Washington, D.C. who are asking how Barack Obama is going to win the votes of workers in states like Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, West Virginia and Pennsylvania.

How can he do it? You’ve just said how: by speaking out about the issues that matter to working people.

Of course, some folks have said that he needs a special strategy to reach out to blue-collar workers.

That he’s got to talk more about God because a lot of us care about religion -- and more about hunting because, for some of us, hunting is a religion.

And there’s something to that: it shouldn’t be any secret that he’s a Christian and that he’s for the 2nd Amendment.

But, at the end of the day, what people are going to need to hear is that when it comes to protecting jobs,

when it comes to protecting pensions,

when it comes to health care, child care, pay equity for women, Social Security, Medicare,

seeing to it that people can afford to go to college and buy a home -- and restoring the right to collective bargaining -- Barack Obama has always, always been on our side.

This is a guy who's voted with labor 98 percent of the time !

Now, contrast that with John McCain.

On one side you have Barack: a man who worked full-time helping laid off steelworkers in Chicago.



On the other side you have John McCain who helped pass the trade laws that resulted in laid-off steelworkers in Chicago.

What kind of man is John McCain?

Let me read you a quote. Listen to what he said. This was on April 23rd in Youngstown, Ohio:

“The biggest problem is not so much what’s happened with free trade, but our inability to adjust to a new world economy.”

In other words, it’s not free trade’s fault your plant shut down and moved to Mexico or China.

Excerpts:

It’s your fault.

If you can’t adjust to free trade, well, suck it up: that’s your problem!

Now, imagine for a second, if he’s going to Youngstown -- of all places — and says that in an election year, what’s he going to do if he ever makes it to the White House?

Brothers and sisters, there’s not a single good reason for any worker -- especially any union member -- to vote