Is Obama done?

[cantdog]

Obama better beat Clinton.

The Clintons are basically Republicans. Clinton waffled on every campaign promise, except that there was one issue he was willing to go to the line for: NAFTA. NAFTA is globalist horse manure. A Republican idea. But Clinton went all out to get it through.

That's why the Republicans are better than the Dems. They tell you right up front they're gonna ass rape you. Dems promise all manner of populist things. Clinton's platform was very liberal. Then they act just like Republicans anyway.

Give 'em a majority, and the first thing they do is cave in to Bush, after lots of fine speechifying. Nader had the lock. There's hardly a hairsbreadth difference, any more. Both parties are bought and paid for by the K Street lobbyists. That is what is meant by 'politics as usual' when the phrase is applied to the ever-so-experienced Clintons. They are accustomed to being bought and paid for.

So yeah. Obama can beat Hillary. Obama can beat McCain. He is so far from 'done' that the very question is asinine.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Obama will beat Clinton. People may be concerned about Obama'a experience but they are more afraid of Clinton's honesty and the "the politics as usual".
Obama, although inexperienced, just like JFK was, offers a new opportunity. I sincerely believe that it is possible to change the way the congress runs this country and I believe he is the one to help do it. Remember how Newt got the public involved in the the republicans "contract with America"? I think Obama could get the public involved in demanding the congress break the politics as usual and start working to improve the country rather that the party. I think McCain could also do some of this but not to the degree that Obama seems able to bring people together. If you want the same old thing, including continuing the Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton by all means vote for Hillary. If you want an opportunity for change vote for Obama and become involved in the process.

Actually JFK wasn't all that inexperienced. Besides being a combat veteran in WW2, he had been a member of Congress for 14 years when he became president.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Obama better beat Clinton.

The Clintons are basically Republicans. Clinton waffled on every campaign promise, except that there was one issue he was willing to go to the line for: NAFTA. NAFTA is globalist horse manure. A Republican idea. But Clinton went all out to get it through.

That's why the Republicans are better than the Dems. They tell you right up front they're gonna ass rape you. Dems promise all manner of populist things. Clinton's platform was very liberal. Then they act just like Republicans anyway.

Give 'em a majority, and the first thing they do is cave in to Bush, after lots of fine speechifying. Nader had the lock. There's hardly a hairsbreadth difference, any more. Both parties are bought and paid for by the K Street lobbyists. That is what is meant by 'politics as usual' when the phrase is applied to the ever-so-experienced Clintons. They are accustomed to being bought and paid for . . .

We agree on a lot, but not the definition of "ass rape" in this context. In my view, that includes policies that cause slow or negative economic growth, becaause whatever putative benefits for the "little guy" such policies promise, when weighed against the price said "little guy" pays for slow or no growth, it is generally the case that these are the true ass-rape policies.

Of course such a cost-benefit analysis is never seriously attempted - the boobeoisie is only told about the putative benefits, and worse, the "intentions" of legislation creating such policies are usually reported as if they are what the bills would really do. This is never the reality, of course.

 

[Belegon]

Dems don't get into trouble over sex ...

You're kidding, right?????

How anyone can say this within fifty years of Monica Lewinsky is absolutely beyond me...

...and don't give me the fucking perjury line. Ask fifty people on the street. They aren't going to say, "Who? Monica who? Oh yeah, the girl Clinton lied about under oath..."

They are going to say, "You mean the intern that blew Bill Clinton?"

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Should I say, don't get held to the same standard by the media? Barney Frank vs. Minnesota bathroom boy, for example?

The rule used to be that all republican scandals were about money and all democratic scandals were about sex. That's no longer the case. When republicans get in trouble over sex, though, they face a double charge of perversion and hypocrisy. Barney Frank ran as an avowed homosexual. His sexuality has never been in doubt, so why should he ever get in trouble?

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

The rule used to be that all republican scandals were about money and all democratic scandals were about sex. That's no longer the case. When republicans get in trouble over sex, though, they face a double charge of perversion and hypocrisy. Barney Frank ran as an avowed homosexual. His sexuality has never been in doubt, so why should he ever get in trouble?

Exactly. And when his opponents tried to use oval office blowjobs from 20-something interns against Clinton, they were the ones who took the political hit, not him.

 

[logophile]

Exactly. And when his opponents tried to use oval office blowjobs from 20-something interns against Clinton, they were the ones who took the political hit, not him.

I think I would call going through the impeachment process taking "a political hit."

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

I think I would call going through the impeachment process taking "a political hit."

It was inconvenient, but it did not cost him or his side at the polls. The other side took greater hits.

 

[Boxlicker101]

The rule used to be that all republican scandals were about money and all democratic scandals were about sex. That's no longer the case. When republicans get in trouble over sex, though, they face a double charge of perversion and hypocrisy. Barney Frank ran as an avowed homosexual. His sexuality has never been in doubt, so why should he ever get in trouble?

He had an affair with a male prostitute, and shacked up with him, and the guy operated as a prostitute out of Franks's apartment. If this had been a straight man, even single, with a female prostitute, the complaints would have been much louder.

 

[Pure]

Will Obama show a "kennedy" syndrome? (macho foreign policy)

Where's the Change, Barack?

By UZMA ASLAM KHAN

Dear Senator Obama,

In the run-up to the 2004 US presidential election, it was said outside the United States that Americans should have the right to vote taken away from them. All those who'd been living under US-backed dictatorships should vote instead.

The reason was that for decades the World had been gathering actionable intelligence (a fine phrase, Senator, privileged by you) that a US election isn't only a US election. It's a World election. Yet, few Americans voted for a candidate, whether Republican or Democrat, for his ability to parley peacefully with the World. It didn't matter how many sovereign states were invaded, how many non-Americans were killed, or left homeless and stateless, nor how many democratically elected leaders were ousted from their countries by the United States.

Americans seemed only concerned with the candidate's promises to them. So the World felt an obligation to offer aid in the shape of preemptively planting a new US president, one who'd respect the rights of others as being equal to the rights of Americans.

If the American people protested and were arrested and tortured by World-backed military personnel, well, it was collateral damage, all part of the process of freedom and democracy. Sooner or later, they'd come to understand that their fate was being decided for them for their own good, and they'd be grateful.

Of course it didn't happen. The World is small compared to the United States. Besides, the non-Americans I know, myself included, don't really wish upon Americans the same fate that's been left to us. We don't want equal tyranny. We want equal worth.

The 2008 US presidential election is also a World election, which means the opinions of the World also won't matter much. Still, if those like me can't vote in fact, we can at least vote in spirit. I dare to hope (yes, naïvely) that some day my spirit--along with that of millions of others in my humble position--will matter.

Let's talk more about actionable intelligence.

Back in September 2004, as a Democratic Senate candidate, you made four revealing points in an interview with the Chicago Tribune. First, you favoured using "surgical" missile strikes against Iran if the sovereign country refused to obey the US and eliminate its nuclear energy program.

Second, you criticised the Bush administration's war in Iraq not because it violated every article in the Geneva Convention and every International Law, but because it drew away attention from "greater threats" such as Iran, North Korea, and Pakistan.

Third, you linked Iran and Pakistan under the banner of "Islamic world".

Fourth, you favoured attacking Pakistan's nuclear arsenal, if Pakistan's self-appointed president, Pervez Musharraf, was overthrown by Pakistanis who have every reason to want him gone and every right to struggle toward this goal. I quote you: "I think there are elements within Pakistan right now-if Musharraf is overthrown and they took over-I think we would have to consider going in and taking those bombs out, because I don't think we can make the same assumptions about how they calculate risks."

You didn't care to elucidate what you meant by 'elements' nor whom you meant by 'they'. Pakistan has 160 million people. I think we have a right to know exactly which one of us you meant. I think we have a right to know how you calculate risks.

Your 2008 presidential election slogan is CHANGE. How can there be change, when your views on foreign policy are no different from that of President Bush? You frequently say, as proof of difference, that you didn't vote for the 2003 Iraq War. Of course not. You weren't in the Senate at the time.

So what is different about you? What's the change? The question was put to your fans during the New Hampshire primaries in Jan 2008, and the results are posted on The Real News website. When one supporter was asked what kind of change you represent, she replied: "He comes from a completely different background. He's international. He's interracial ... He represents everything that is America and that is the World. That's what we need right now. He will change the way America is seen in the World."

To me this sums up the enormous gap between how your supporters see America and how others see America. I know some of your supporters. I've asked them why your position on North Korea and the "Islamic World" isn't seen as xenophobic and imperialistic within the United States when outside the United States, it is. I've asked them why your racist wartalk isn't called racist wartalk within the United States when outside the United States, it is.

Like the supporter above, they cite your international and interracial background as proof of difference. This is almost as insulting as Geraldine Ferraro saying you are where you are because you're black. You're not a candidate for change because you're black anymore than you're ahead in the polls because you're black. You are where you are because, as far as world peace is concerned, you're not a candidate for change.

If you said, for example, that the country with the most nuclear weapons in the World must first eliminate its own nuclear program if weaker countries are to do the same--well, see what I mean? You wouldn't be where you are.

Over three years have passed since your above mentioned interview with the Chicago Tribune. Some may argue that you've changed since then, that your world view has matured and you wouldn't favour military action against Iran or Pakistan today because the people of Iran and Pakistan are no less important than the people of America. On the contrary, the views you've endorsed since then are no less alarming.

In August 2007, when Senator Hillary Clinton accused you of being naïve about foreign policy, your mannish response was to reiterate your 2004 views and take them to a higher level, as it were: "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets in Pakistan and President Musharraf won't act, we will." Suddenly, those 'elements' you vaguely mentioned in 2004 weren't only a threat if they overthrew America's man, Musharraf. You said you'd "act" whether or not Musharraf agreed!

It's worth adding that Clinton criticised you for this comment, though later the same day, she told American Urban Radio Network, "If we had actionable intelligence that Osama bin Laden or other high-value targets were in Pakistan I would ensure that they were targeted and killed or captured."

She also praised her husband Bill Clinton's 1998 attack on Afghanistan, in which Osama was neither killed nor captured. The only reason this letter is addressed to you not her is because you're winning. It's probably you against Senator John McCain, and McCain ain't gonna change. Maybe you will.

Please consider this: Pakistan has always been a US ally. It was an ally during the 1979-1988 Afghan War, when the US gave billions of dollars to the Islamic Jihad to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan. Militant Islamic movements are a product of the US financing of the Islamic Jihad. Osama is America's creation.

You want change? Be the first US president to acknowledge this link. The United States has a responsibility to Fess Up, and a responsibility to address its past mistakes without killing more innocent civilians. It's Pakistanis who've had to watch Pakistan destroyed because of the US-funded Jihad. It's we who've been living in the debris of your Cold War.

To add insult to injury, Pakistan is also a US ally in the War on Terror. We're also living in the debris of this war. Our own internal conflicts, which multiplied during the 1979-1988 Afghan War, have multiplied even further. You want change? Be the first US president to understand these internal struggles. They include: the struggle for better health care, better education, access to drinking water, access to electricity (power cuts this winter averaged 10 hours daily), the sanctity of the judiciary, the end of military rule, greater emphasis on cultural activities--on literature, music and things that bring people peace--class equality, women's rights, minority rights, that minor thing. We need to focus on our interests no less than you need to focus on yours. Pakistanis are sick of bowing to US command and sick of putting our struggles on hold for your wars.

To add more insult to more injury: We have done your bidding for as long as we know; in return, you threaten to bomb us. Which part of terror do you not understand?

To be the first international US President who'll change the way America is seen in the World, first change the way you see the World. See it as a partner, not a client. As a common ground, not a junkyard. There is actionable intelligence that the World couldn't be more ready for change.

Yours truly,

World citizen

P.S. You look nice in Somali dress. Why has the photo embarrassed you?

Uzma Aslam Khan a novelist and an essayist. She is the author of The Story of Noble Rot (PenguinIndia 2001) and Trespassing (Flamingo/ HarperCollins UK 2003;

 

[Boxlicker101]

Where's the Change, Barack?

By UZMA ASLAM KHAN

Dear Senator Obama,

Of course it didn't happen. The World is small compared to the United States. Besides, the non-Americans I know, myself included, don't really wish upon Americans the same fate that's been left to us. We don't want equal tyranny. We want equal worth.

Yours truly,

World citizen

P.S. You look nice in Somali dress. Why has the photo embarrassed you?

Uzma Aslam Khan a novelist and an essayist. She is the author of The Story of Noble Rot (PenguinIndia 2001) and Trespassing (Flamingo/ HarperCollins UK 2003;

I was rather taken aback by that statement. Especially, considering China is about three times as big as the USA and India is at least twice as big.

 

[Belegon]

I was rather taken aback by that statement. Especially, considering China is about three times as big as the USA and India is at least twice as big.

China? Not in terms of impact upon her region of the world. Although you certainly can not overestimate the importance of relations with India to a Pakistani, the Chinese have relatively little involvement in the Middle East compared to the Americans.

Simply put, the US remains the most powerful nation on earth by a large margin. Not only militarily, but economically.

 

[sr71plt]

I was rather taken aback by that statement. Especially, considering China is about three times as big as the USA and India is at least twice as big.

Excuse me?

United States: 3,618,770 sq. miles

China: 3,599,475 sq. miles

India: 1,222,396 sq. miles

 

[Boxlicker101]

Excuse me?

United States: 3,618,770 sq. miles

China: 3,599,475 sq. miles

India: 1,222,396 sq. miles

Oh, come now. You must know that I was referring to population.

 

[sr71plt]

Oh, come now. You must know that I was referring to population.

Well, no. I would assume if that's what you meant, that would be what you'd actually post. It wasn't.

Your posts might not be questioned as much as they were if you were more careful about what you posted. (By the way, if you meant population, then China's population is about five times that of the United States; India's population is about three and a half times that of the United States. Actual research isn't all that difficult).

 

[Pure]

note to box,

MS. KAHN Yet, few Americans voted for a candidate, whether Republican or Democrat, for his ability to parley peacefully with the World. It didn't matter how many sovereign states were invaded, how many non-Americans were killed, or left homeless and stateless, nor how many democratically elected leaders were ousted from their countries by the United States.

Americans seemed only concerned with the candidate's promises to them. So the World felt an obligation to offer aid in the shape of preemptively planting a new US president, one who'd respect the rights of others as being equal to the rights of Americans.

If the American people protested and were arrested and tortured by World-backed military personnel, well, it was collateral damage, all part of the process of freedom and democracy. Sooner or later, they'd come to understand that their fate was being decided for them for their own good, and they'd be grateful.

Of course it didn't happen. The World is small compared to the United States. Besides, the non-Americans I know, myself included, don't really wish upon Americans the same fate that's been left to us. We don't want equal tyranny. We want equal worth.

The 2008 US presidential election is also a World election, which means the opinions of the World also won't matter much.

===

Interesting, box, you do not engage the substance of ms khan at all, but presume she's an ignoramus about geography or population.

i think belegon read the article; it's about US power.

arguably the bolded statement is ms khan's rendering of the AMERICAN'S view, i.e. we are the big shots, the significant ones. note her last line quoted the opinions of the World also won't matter much is also in the same vein, i.e. a rendition of american thinking.

in any case, the above is an intro to her main points about Obama's macho stance and apparent willingness to invade. the intro, in a word, sets the stage by saying Americans--lots of them-- tend not to give a fuck what the rest of the world thinks, or know much about what it's like (e.g be unable to find iraq, or even china, on a map).

 

[sr71plt]

I'll have to say that "The World Is Small Compared to the United States" would be a perfectly delightful book title. Instant best-seller.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Where's the Change, Barack?

By UZMA ASLAM KHAN

Dear Senator Obama,

In the run-up to the 2004 US presidential election, it was said outside the United States that Americans should have the right to vote taken away from them. All those who'd been living under US-backed dictatorships should vote instead.

[--snipped (read the original--dr.M.)--]

This is one reason why I don't take candidates policy positions all that seriously and why their character matters. Their campaign positions are a mixture of their real intentions and what they feel they have to say to get elected, a manifestation of their character. My own reading of Obama's positions on Pakistan and Iran are his setting a hardline anchor on the right for electability's sake. I see the man as being too sane to pursue the failed policies of the Bush administration in this area but too realistic to say what has to be said at this moment in the political campaign for the presidency of the United States. The American People will not, at this time, elect the truth. They will not hear the truth.

Khan's letter is wonderfully naive. He wants the US to recognize and help Pakistan when there is in fact, no government infrastructure in place in Pakistan through which we can effect such change. Pakistan is a feudal society run by wealthy landowners who support one dictator after another to maintain the status quo, and that's why militant Islam thrives there, in opposition to this repression. Their problems are internal, not external, and not the USA's to fix. Relations could certainly be better and geared towards helping a more representative type of government emerge, but we're not responsible for what's happening in Pakistan.

Of the three candidates, we know where McCain stands: Business as usual. Hillary too would continue the policies of Bush/Clinton. Within the limits of acceptable, electable change, Obama is the best hope to alter the course of America's role in the world.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

Within the limits of acceptable, electable change, Obama is the best hope to alter the course of America's role in the world.

Yes.

But how.

In what direction do you see him taking things?

 

[cloudy]

Yes.

But how.

In what direction do you see him taking things?

For me, Selena, he is the best hope of seeing this country become a little less contemptible to the rest of the world.

We had the world on our side after 9/11, and in just a few short years, Bush squandered all that good will, and has us in a position of ridicule. I don't see Hillary fixing that, or McCain.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

For me, Selena, he is the best hope of seeing this country become a little less contemptible to the rest of the world.

We had the world on our side after 9/11, and in just a few short years, Bush squandered all that good will, and has us in a position of ridicule. I don't see Hillary fixing that, or McCain.

For me, I just don't know how important that is in the scheme of things?

I'd rather have some real social and environmental (and yes, economic, too!) change... than have our tarnished image shined up... the latter seems superficial to me...

just had an ah-ha moment there re: Obama and image.

Hm. Interesting.

Anyway, I think if the former changes occur, the latter will follow... I just don't want it all to be shined up nice and pretty when it's crumbling underneath, kwim?

Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Cloudy!

 

[cloudy]

For me, I just don't know how important that is in the scheme of things?

I'd rather have some real social and environmental (and yes, economic, too!) change... than have our tarnished image shined up... the latter seems superficial to me...

just had an ah-ha moment there re: Obama and image.

Hm. Interesting.

Anyway, I think if the former changes occur, the latter will follow... I just don't want it all to be shined up nice and pretty when it's crumbling underneath, kwim?

Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Cloudy!

I get ya, but something we have to consider is that our isolationist "me first" policies of the past just won't work in today's global economy. Diplomacy is extremely important.

I looked at Hillary's "who's gonna answer the phone" ad, and honestly....it gave me the creeps because she seems so set on out-macho-ing any man that I believe she'd probably come closer to pushing the proverbial button than anyone else has in decades. Scary shit.

I believe Obama will make changes for the better as far as our national healthcare goes, and that's important to me, since we can't afford health insurance right now.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

she seems so set on out-macho-ing any man that I believe she'd probably come closer to pushing the proverbial button than anyone else has in decades. Scary shit.

I believe Obama will make changes for the better as far as our national healthcare goes, and that's important to me, since we can't afford health insurance right now.

Yeah, her "manning" the ship does scare me, too, in that regard.

And I'm 110% with you on health care. We didn't have it for a LONG time, and we're now paying way too much for very little coverage.

*sigh*

 

[Boxlicker101]

I get ya, but something we have to consider is that our isolationist "me first" policies of the past just won't work in today's global economy. Diplomacy is extremely important.

I looked at Hillary's "who's gonna answer the phone" ad, and honestly....it gave me the creeps because she seems so set on out-macho-ing any man that I believe she'd probably come closer to pushing the proverbial button than anyone else has in decades. Scary shit.

I believe Obama will make changes for the better as far as our national healthcare goes, and that's important to me, since we can't afford health insurance right now.

I have to wonder how effective that ad will be in the long run. When I saw it, my thought was that I would rather have McCain answer it than either of the Dems.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Wow! Triple post! I just got back from the dentist!