Obama = POTUS

nuff said.

peace

So it seems your a Obama Supporter,
he who does plagarism ,
he whose wife says she is proud of america the first time because a black gentleman is trying to become the president.
He who gets support from oprah just because he is a black.
What injustice has america done to the race are they not coming in every field
I hate any minority group who tries to take advantage even when they are treated equally just because they were treated badly long back.(same thing with minorities in India)

I understand women want representation in our democracy as much as a race or other ethnic groups want there representation. But we need to put in office that person who will represent us and our collective best interests and that person is Barack. Hillary is part of the old way of approaching obsticals as Deepak so eloquently stated. Barack gives fresh and creative solutions
to many of our problems and that is exactly what our nation needs now. Hillary keeps talking about expericence and if that's the case then McCain should win hands down. Look where we are with all that experience in our govenment...

Love, Love

Yes I completely agree with you.

Hi Deepak,

Today in the center of Costa Rica's San Jose there was a "teach-in." People marching and red/white flags waving. Educators (50,000 of them in this country) want to be recognized as professionals.

There is power in the people. What is the platform of the people at grassroots? And who is our leader? Obama has proven to be a gentleman. He even "fights" with class. Refreshing change.

Trish~~

Hello Deepak and Eveyone,

Boy, this campaign is starting to be an incredible bore. On one hand we have the "messiah" and on the other the "queen of mean and nasty with a tad of corruption on the side" maybe, we should just put her in the public square and stone the _ithch and get it over with..:))))

Deepak you write,"Americans love a good fight, and they want their President to be first of all a commander-in-chief. Except that this time the pre-written scenario has hit a snag, because those millions who fervently believe in Obama want a messiah more than they want a fighter or commander-in-chief."

I would say if millions who fervently believe in Barak want a messiah more than a commander-in-chief then we should all be very very worried because it seems millions of voters are confusing the White House with that "big big house in the sky."

you also write,"If Hillary wrests the nomination away from Obama by using spoiler tactics, in-fighting, smears, and cronyism (which looks like the only way she can win), she will be shooting Santa Claus in front of the children, to quote a witty remark.....(not that witty but probably accuately describes the make-up of his supporters emotional maturity ::)))....
On the other hand, his idealism is seen as the real thing, and forcing him to counter the Clintons' get-down-in-the-mud tactics would fatally compromise his integrity, the very soul of Obama's campaign."

Boy, this really gets me...for starters Barak Obama has had the all time marshmallow of a presiential campaign thus far, he hasn't had to lift a finger in his own defense because no-one was challenging him, the press and media were too busy flinging the knives at Hillary while Barak Obama, Mr. Integrity, Mr. Truth, Mr bigtime Change freewheeled his way down a high road newly paved just for him...Barak Obama never once said hey fellas....I am over here....go ahead fling a knife at me, test my reflexes, scrutinize a little, how bout a real tough question or two? anyone?....go ahead I want this to be an equal opportunity campaign,...but he didn't. He just took all the false flattery bestowed upon him by the Hillary hating press and deposited into his presidential bank account making him a very rich(popularity wise)presidential candidate.

Fighting is Healthy...especially in the political arena, in fact, some of the best political fighting happened surrounding the birth of our Nation.

you write," But he won't lose all the time, and there's a chance that his Presidency could put the entire country back on the right track."

I am not a believer, and, in fac,t I think his Presiency could create a whole new set of issues and problems that we really do not need right now because the ones we already have facing us are too serious for the VERY INEXPERIENCED Barak Obama.

And, if anyone knows for sure that Barak Obama is no messiah it is Barak Obama.

have a great day ruth

"..and the toughness that quashed Newt Gingrich and his Contract with America.."

I'm laughing.
It wasn't a Clinton Economy. If anything it was the result of Reagan’s bringing the highest tax rate down from 70% to the 35% percent rate boosted by Gingrich and his contract.

Right now in Maine the Democratic government is waiting with anxiety for their citizens to send income tax checks because they have become addicted to the peoples money. Their socialist governor is finally facing the facts and realizing what JFK knew. Running the government on the back of the people can not work. There is no collective of people on this earth capable of collecting and distributing. It must be organic.

As Maine goes, so goes the country. If Barak becomes President, he better pray for a Newt Gingrich to come along and make him look good for his 'legacy'.

Anybody who is aware would see this.

hello again,

just wanted to add..

Deepak you write,"If Obama loses the nomination, his followers could be so devastated that they will renounce political participation,"

What is that supposed to mean? Are you serious?

gee, I had to "survive, live, be, breathe, exhale, work, give birth, deal with personal losses" and do it all under President Ronald Regan, and President Gerald Ford and President George Bush I and II, also I had to go out and vote after the murders of JFK, RFK, MLK, imagine that. Devastation galore and yet I always waited in line to cast my vote...and so did millions of other Americans...

So my advice to the pampered little Obama "followers"...you can do devastation or you can deal...your choice, either way America is moving on.

you know, I am staring to get that vibe again...what is it...yes, that is it...that subtle touch of hautiness that surrounds the Barak Obama movement.

evening all, ruth

I don't think being aware means running up the deficit and corporate welfare. Yes Reagan's tax cut and Kennedy's tax cuts helped the economy. But under Reagan and Bush1 the deficit expanded to 4 trillion dollars. Bill was reducing the deficit until Newt and the CWA added another trillion dollars from their tax cuts. Now our current president King George has ballooned the deficit another 4.5 trillion to 9.5 trillion.

King George recently borrowed more money to give to tax payers to stimulate the economy which is joke in itself.

Republicans spend on defense and democrats spend on social services. Right now it's too far in one direction and there has to be a better balance. It's how we spend the money...

I agree people have to be accountable for their existence but not all have the same opportunities. Barack will provide real education to help people provide a better life for themselves and not live off the system which is unfortunately the mindset of a lot of urban people. Barack is the kind of leader we need for social and environmental accountablity.

to be continued...

Love, Love

Something self righteously angry is going on.

What is the innuendo of urgency and vague fear being used here?

Could it be that Obama's call for "change" is being heard as a soft word for Revolution by the discouraged, the dissilusioned, and those who feel they have no voice. Is that why "Obama *needs* to be chosen?"
Otherwise, a large disgruntled group of Americans will look to restore government accountability by more direct means?

bad news everybody talkin' bout
a short fuse a half inch from burnin' out
all used up beyond a reasonable doubt

make way for his majesty the prodigal king
still taste the poison when you're kissing the ring
don't say he never gave you anything

short ride from here to where the beast resides
fine line that separates the shadows inside

FYI, Obama supporters are not "cultish". They are are also, in fact the better informed of the two.

Buried in the exit poll data for Ohio Texas Primaries is the info that suggests Clinton supporters are indeed cultish:

10% of Obama supporters said they would never vote for Hillary Clinton.

while, 25% of Hillary supporters said they would never vote for Obama.

Dr. D...
this is a brilliant, realistic assessment of this Democratic contest...of the stakes at hand and of what might unfold soo...well done!

the country needs Obama especially after who now occupies the O.O...this is not the time for hillary...the country needs obama...

Diablo.

Obama the Giant Killer was about to place his hand upon the Holy Bible to accept the Presidency of the United States of America,

his blackened silhouette incandescently adorning the people gathered upon the expansive lawn,

when from out the crowd leapt most fiercely Red Sonya,

errr,

Ruth Sonya,

gleaming longsword blinding all far and near,

and before Obama she was in one bound

and as her mighty blow was about to crush her ebon foe,

from Obama’s supporters midst came Bill to the rescue,

Sonya’s beauty driving him mad, as Obama’s hope previously had,

and Ruth shew worthy her warrior status,

and Hillary’s husband betrayed her madness,

and America ushered in eight years,

aye and even perhaps many more,

of a community of gladness, and a world of less war,

aye perhaps even more,

happiness for more countries than just ours.

Peace

Senator Obama inspires me. His message and personal style transcend so much of what we've come to expect from political campaigns and participants.

I hope he wins the nomination and the general election and has a successful presidency.

If he doesn't?
I think/hope/believe/pray his supporters will be inspired to keep on working for positive change.

And, to Ruth:
Just because we're not strident or vicious, do not presume Obama supporters to he haughty, pampered, or cut from any particular bolt of cloth. We're just individuals attuned to an inspiring message that fails to resonate with you.

I admire the passionate and loyal intensity of your support for Hillary, but your choice of words in her defense is unlikely to win friends . . . or influence people, in her behalf.
So, as an Obama supporter, I thank you.

I think Republicans I would support Clinton being nominated, because McCaine has the best chance of winning against Clinton.

Both Clinton and McCain are linked to scandals because of their association with the ego empire; what is it about them that attracts these things, a level of consciousness? Clinton leads the three in scandal affiliations. Perhaps it was just being in the right place at the wrong time.

Of course everyone goes into congress with good intentions becoming subjected to the extreme forces of ego and pulled into the game and the illusion. It is because of this the President needs to be very spiritual and wise with ability to communicate intelligence and see through the fiction in their own minds so they are able to see through the fictions in the minds of those they deal with.

Most of all the congress and the president need participatory self government, the measured and authenticated voice of an informed citizenry. It is this voice that carries decision making weight and is when properly implemented an impetus greater than that of the special interests that may influence decisions and policy to the benefit of a few to the detriment of many.

When the elements of self government are brought before the people, issues are brought before a collective discerning mind of extraordinary intelligence and a portion of wise and self aware individuals to EVOLVE the open Socratic dialog concerning our collective effort which we call government. This transparency allows for the dissolution of ignorance and fictional perceptual frameworks.

Conservative = Wisdom

Liberal = Freedom

There is no conflict between the two, they compliment each other. However the labels are applied to a conflict between various polarizing frameworks where people argue whose fictions are true and feed on the drama in self avoidance. If they were discussing the truth, there would be no argument. Let us not be naïve though, the truth can cause a conflict, in a world of fiction. Fiction produces a world of perpetual conflict. With the fictions comes fear, for example the illusion of scarcity and perceived and created threats.

So we get two parties that both fail allowing the other to succeed in reverse of their stated intentions which happens to contradict the intentions of the citizenry which are personal and economic freedom.

Democrats = Loss of economic freedom

Republicans = Loss of personal freedom

The Republicans fail to achieve economic freedom and the Democrats fail to achieve personal freedom, and members of both blame each other, at least that is the story, while these other few that have been playing each side benefit disproportionally.
So we have these few with their disproportionate influence that can only be countered with a collective effort by a unity of citizens. Influence gained by a concentration of ownership and the control of the symbol created out of nothing, used to represent value and energy in the flow of wealth. Eventually resulting in the transfer tangible wealth to a few using an intangible symbol.

In the face of a candidate with the allure of "Messiah" we are down two strikes before we begin to comment. Without a durable democratic consciousness fired by shared ideas, we are powerless, yearning for the "Messiah" that can lead to the promised land. What we get, instead, is the politics of demogogy and failed dreams. There can be no substitute for the wisdom and power arising from a real democracy built upon genuine dialogue, and that is what turned me off of Barack Obama in the first instance--the gentleman knows nothing about real dialogue--and the chances of his cowboy leadership producing a real challenge to capitalist politics is pure fantasy. However much Americans want a "Messiah" this election cycle is highly unlikely to produce one, all rhetoric to the contrary notwithstadning.

That brings me to the second line of objections to Barack Obama for President that I have learned about: investor directed politics is the disease of the political systenm that Americans must cure but Obama is clearly in the thick of this disease, founding his candidacy upon money politics. Matt Gonzales, VP running mate of Ralph Nader took a close look at what this produces and the picture is not good. We have a candidate up to his eyelids in phony politics, whatever may be the alluring appeal of his rhetoric, demogogy just plain stinks with double think images: you do not get what you see and hear, you get the worst of political double talk. We learn upon careful examination of Obama's record by Matt Gonzalez‚ in a report Feb. 27‚ 2008, that Obama -- an inspirational man of color is engaged in grossly misleading spin. See for yourself online at URL: http://beyondchron.org/news/index.php?itemid=5413#more

Praying for "Messiah" will not bring the wisdom and power of a genuine democracy, and that is what we need most in this world. The God that is within us all will be revealed when we personally accept the critical responsibility for leadership. We are, each one of us, ourselves,the "Messiah" that we are looking for. No demogogy will be an adequate substitute for what is needed by our civilization.

Vigdor
GOOGLE: LOVERS OF DEMOCRACY

This accumulated concentrated wealth though is an illusion, only possible because we perceive the symbol to have value. If we look the current global financial fiasco and the mismanagement of the monetary systems made possible by it’s fiat nature, flaws, gambling and artificially inflated perceived values. We that know one can calculate it’s actual value.

The real value in the world is in the products and services that will be produced tomorrow so the producers of the tangibles tomorrow have the most power if they are not divided. The workers can demand wages be paid in what ever form they collectively desire. If a new form of monetary unit were to become available one with tangible value this would become the currency of choice.

This new currency would not require legislation to implement but simply a system to support it. With the creation of the system the new tangible currency becomes a reality and it is in demand.

The tangible backed currency could coexist with the intangible fiat currencies. It might act as the base line upon which all other currencies could be based, creating a stable and buffered system.

This would be a new ingenious type of currency that gained value and did not suffer from inflation. It would also include a specific class that paid dividends. These monetary units could only be owned by an individual and each individual could only own 250,000 of them. But an individual could sell or lease his rights to the ownership of the new tangible monetary units, in one sense creating value out of nothing like the central banks of today.

So the common people would be able to quickly convert their intangible money into tangible money. However those with a surplus of intangible money would have to purchase the ability to convert into tangible monetary units from the owners of the new tangible monetary system, the workers.

Perhaps this is the only fix to the current financial systems that can keep the flow from collapsing. The needs of substance today will be here tomorrow. It is only the artificial economy that can slow down, the real economy food shelter, energy and transportation persists and expands.

There was this computer model of the economic system that always failed a flaw in the system resulting from the creation of interest due on money created without actually putting the money to pay the interest into circulation.

The monetary system flaw would be hidden by the sheer number of participants, complexity of transactions, and other time factors although the flaw could be aggravated by gambling. The time span for the exposure of the flaw is proportional to the complexity and number of participants. Unless reversed by the application of the tangible fix above.

How did I get off politics onto money well I suppose they must be connected?

Sounds like a good story to me.

Wow Richard, thanks!

There is a profound lesson to be learnt here :)

Thank you Deepak!

Mieke

This came form my cousin in England.

Subject: Britain to Repossess the US

A Message from John Cleese:

To: The citizens of the United States of America:

In light of your failure to nominate competent candidates for President of the USA and thus to govern yourselves, we hereby give notice of the revocation of your independence, effective
immediately.

Her Sovereign Majesty Queen Elizabeth II will resume monarchical duties over all states, commonwealths, and territories (except
Kansas which she does not fancy).

Our new prime minister, Gordon Brown, will appoint a governor for America without the need for further elections.

Congress and the Senate will be disbanded.

A questionnaire may be circulated next year to determine whether any of you noticed.

To aid in the transition to a British Crown Dependency, the following rules are introduced with immediate effect:

You should look up 'revocation' in the Oxford English Dictionary.

1. Then look up aluminium, and check the pronunciation guide. You will be amazed at just how wrongly you have been pronouncing it.

2. The letter 'U' will be reinstated in words such as 'favour' and 'neighbour.' Likewise, you will learn to spell 'doughnut' without
skipping half the letters and the suffix -ize will be replaced by the suffix -ise.

Generally, you will be expected to raise your vocabulary to acceptable levels. (Look up 'vocabulary').

3. Using the same twenty-seven words interspersed with filler noises such as 'like' and 'you know' is an unacceptable and inefficient form of communication.

There is no such thing as US English. We will let Microsoft know on your behalf. The Microsoft spell-checker will be adjusted to take
account of the reinstated letter 'u' and the elimination of -ize. You will relearn your original national anthem, God Save the Queen.

4. July 4th will no longer be celebrated as a holiday. And Benedict Arnold Day (our national hero) will be substituted instead..

5. You will learn to resolve personal issues without using guns, lawyers, or therapists. The fact that you need so many lawyers
and therapists shows that you're not adult enough to be independent.

Guns should only be handled by adults. If you're not adult enough to sort things out without suing someone or speaking to a therapist
then you're not grown up enough to handle a gun.

6. Therefore, you will no longer be allowed to own or carry anything more dangerous than a vegetable peeler. A permit will be required if
you wish to carry a vegetable peeler in public.

7. All American cars are hereby banned. They are crap and this is for your own good. When we show you German cars, you will understand what
we mean. Holden Monaros are also approved.

8. All intersections will be replaced with roundabouts, and you will start driving on the left with immediate effect. At the same time, you will go metric with immediate effect and without the benefit of conversion tables.

Both roundabouts and metrication will help you understand the British sense of humour.

9. The Former USA will adopt UK prices on petrol (which you have been calling gasoline)-roughly $6/US gallon. Get used to it.

10 You will learn to make real chips. Those things you call French fries are not real chips, and those things you insist on calling potato chips are properly called crisps. Real chips are
thick cut,fried in animal fat, and dressed not with catsup but with vinegar.

11. The cold tasteless stuff you insist on calling beer is not actually beer at all. Henceforth, only proper British Bitter will
be referred to as beer, and European brews of known and accepted rovenance will be referred to as Lager.

South African beer is also acceptable as they are pound for pound the greatest sporting Nation on earth and it can only be due to the beer.
They are also part of British Commonwealth - see what it did for them.

American brands will be referred to as Near-Frozen Gnat's Urine, so that all can be sold without risk of further confusion.

12. Hollywood will be required occasionally to cast English actors as good guys. Hollywood will also be required to cast English actors to
play English characters. Watching Andie Macdowell attempt English dialogue in Four Weddings and a Funeral was an experience akin to having one's ears removed with a cheese grater.

13. You will cease playing American football. There is only one kind of proper football; you call it soccer. Those of you brave enough
will, in time, be allowed to play rugby (which has some similarities to American football, but does not involve stopping for a rest every
twenty seconds or wearing full Kevlar body armour like a bunch of nancies). Don't try Rugby - the South Africans and Kiwis will thrash you, like
they regularly thrash us.

14. Further, you will stop playing baseball. It is not reasonable to host an event called the World Series for a game which is not played outside of America. Since only 2.1% of you are aware that there is a world beyond your borders, your error is understandable. You will learn
cricket, and we will let you face the South Africans first to take the sting out of their deliveries.

15. You must tell us who killed JFK. It's been driving us mad.

16. An internal revenue agent (i.e. tax collector) from Her Majesty's Government will be with you shortly to ensure the acquisition of all
monies due (backdated to 1776).

17. Daily Tea Time begins promptly at 4 pm with proper cups, never mugs, with high quality biscuits (cookies) and cakes; strawberries
in season.

God Save the Queen.

Note: I hear Cleese is down their at the Alliance For New Humanity.

Greg Craig, former director of the Policy Planning Office, U.S. State Department sent out this memo today:

When your entire campaign is based upon a claim of experience, it is important that you have evidence to support that claim. Hillary Clinton’s argument that she has passed “the Commander- in-Chief test” is simply not supported by her record.

There is no doubt that Hillary Clinton played an important domestic policy role when she was First Lady. It is well known, for example, that she led the failed effort to pass universal health insurance. There is no reason to believe, however, that she was a key player in foreign policy at any time during the Clinton Administration. She did not sit in on National Security Council meetings. She did not have a security clearance. She did not attend meetings in the Situation Room. She did not manage any part of the national security bureaucracy, nor did she have her own national security staff. She did not do any heavy-lifting with foreign governments, whether they were friendly or not. She never managed a foreign policy crisis, and there is no evidence to suggest that she participated in the decision-making that occurred in connection with any such crisis. As far as the record shows, Senator Clinton never answered the phone either to make a decision on any pressing national security issue – not at 3 AM or at any other time of day.

When asked to describe her experience, Senator Clinton has cited a handful of international incidents where she says she played a central role. But any fair-minded and objective judge of these claims – i.e., by someone not affiliated with the Clinton campaign – would conclude that Senator Clinton’s claims of foreign policy experience are exaggerated.

Northern Ireland:

Senator Clinton has said, “I helped to bring peace to Northern Ireland.” It is a gross overstatement of the facts for her to claim even partial credit for bringing peace to Northern Ireland. She did travel to Northern Ireland, it is true. First Ladies often travel to places that are a focus of U.S. foreign policy. But at no time did she play any role in the critical negotiations that ultimately produced the peace. As the Associated Press recently reported, “[S]he was not directly involved in negotiating the Good Friday peace accord.” With regard to her main claim that she helped bring women together, she did participate in a meeting with women, but, according to those who know best, she did not play a pivotal role. The person in charge of the negotiations, former Senator George Mitchell, said that “[The First Lady] was one of many people who participated in encouraging women to get involved, not the only one.”

News of Senator Clinton’s claims has raised eyebrows across the ocean. Her reference to an important meeting at the Belfast town hall was debunked. Her only appearance at the Belfast City Hall was to see Christmas lights turned on. She also attended a 50-minute meeting which, according to the Belfast Daily Telegraph’s report at the time, “[was] a little bit stilted, a little prepared at times." Brian Feeney, an Irish author and former politician, sums it up: “The road to peace was carefully documented, and she wasn’t on it.”

Bosnia:

Senator Clinton has pointed to a March 1996 trip to Bosnia as proof that her foreign travel involved a life-risking mission into a war zone. She has described dodging sniper fire. While she did travel to Bosnia in March 1996, the visit was not a high-stakes mission to a war zone. On March 26, 1996, the New York Times reported that “Hillary Rodham Clinton charmed American troops at a U.S.O. show here, but it didn’t hurt that the singer Sheryl Crow and the comedian Sinbad were also on the stage.”

Kosovo:

Senator Clinton has said, “I negotiated open borders to let fleeing refugees into safety from Kosovo.” It is true that, as First Lady, she traveled to Macedonia and visited a Kosovar refugee camp. It is also true that she met with government officials while she was there. First Ladies frequently meet with government officials. Her claim to have “negotiated open borders to let fleeing refugees into safety from Kosovo,” however, is not true. Her trip to Macedonia took place on May 14, 1999. The borders were opened the day before, on May 13, 1999.

The negotiations that led to the opening of the borders were accomplished by the people who ordinarily conduct negotiations with foreign governments – U.S. diplomats. President Clinton’s top envoy to the Balkans, former Ambassador Robert Gelbard, said, “I cannot recall any involvement by Senator Clinton in this issue.” Ivo Daalder worked on the Clinton Administration’s National Security Council and wrote a definitive history of the Kosovo conflict. He recalls that “she had absolutely no role in the dirty work of negotiations.”

Rwanda:

Last year, former President Clinton asserted that his wife pressed him to intervene with U.S. troops to stop the Rwandan genocide. When asked about this assertion, Hillary Clinton said it was true. There is no evidence, however, to suggest that this ever happened. Even those individuals who were advocating a much more robust U.S. effort to stop the genocide did not argue for the use of U.S. troops. No one recalls hearing that Hillary Clinton had any interest in this course of action. Based on a fair and thorough review of National Security Council deliberations during those tragic months, there is no evidence to suggest that U.S. military intervention was ever discussed. Prudence Bushnell, the Assistant Secretary of State with responsibility for Africa, has recalled that there was no consideration of U.S. military intervention.

At no time prior to her campaign for the presidency did Senator Clinton ever make the claim that she supported intervening militarily to stop the Rwandan genocide. It is noteworthy that she failed to mention this anecdote – urging President Clinton to intervene militarily in Rwanda – in her memoirs. President Clinton makes no mention of such a conversation with his wife in his memoirs. And Madeline Albright, who was Ambassador to the United Nations at the time, makes no mention of any such event in her memoirs.

Hillary Clinton did visit Rwanda in March 1998 and, during that visit, her husband apologized for America’s failure to do more to prevent the genocide.

China

Senator Clinton also points to a speech that she delivered in Beijing in 1995 as proof of her ability to answer a 3 AM crisis phone call. It is strange that Senator Clinton would base her own foreign policy experience on a speech that she gave over a decade ago, since she so frequently belittles Barack Obama’s speeches opposing the Iraq War six years ago. Let there be no doubt: she gave a good speech in Beijing, and she stood up for women’s rights. But Senator Obama’s opposition to the War in Iraq in 2002 is relevant to the question of whether he, as Commander-in-Chief, will make wise judgments about the use of military force. Senator Clinton’s speech in Beijing is not.

Senator Obama’s speech opposing the war in Iraq shows independence and courage as well as good judgment. In the speech that Senator Clinton says does not qualify him to be Commander in Chief, Obama criticized what he called “a rash war . . . a war based not on reason, but on passion, not on principle, but on politics.” In that speech, he said prophetically: “[E]ven a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.” He predicted that a U.S. invasion of Iraq would “fan the flames of the Middle East,” and “strengthen the recruitment arm of al Qaeda.” He urged the United States first to “finish the fight with Bin Laden and al Qaeda.”

If the U.S. government had followed Barack Obama’s advice in 2002, we would have avoided one of the greatest foreign policy catastrophes in our nation’s history. Some of the most “experienced” men in national security affairs – Vice President Cheney and Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and others – led this nation into that catastrophe. That lesson should teach us something about the value of judgment over experience. Longevity in Washington, D.C. does not guarantee either wisdom of judgment.

Conclusion:

The Clinton campaign’s argument is nothing more than mere assertion, dramatized in a scary television commercial with a telephone ringing in the middle of the night. There is no support for or substance in the claim that Senator Clinton has passed “the Commander-in-Chief test.” That claim – as the TV ad – consists of nothing more than making the assertion, repeating it frequently to the voters and hoping that they will believe it.

On the most critical foreign policy judgment of our generation – the War in Iraq – Senator Clinton voted in support of a resolution entitled “The Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of U.S. Military Force Against Iraq.” As she cast that vote, she said: “This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make -- any vote that may lead to war should be hard -- but I cast it with conviction.” In this campaign, Senator Clinton has argued – remarkably – that she wasn’t actually voting for war, she was voting for diplomacy. That claim is no more credible than her other claims of foreign policy experience. The real tragedy is that we are still living with the terrible consequences of her misjudgment. The Bush Administration continues to cite that resolution as its authorization – like a blank check – to fight on with no end in sight.

Barack Obama has a very simple case. On the most important commander in chief test of our generation, he got it right, and Senator Clinton got it wrong. In truth, Senator Obama has much more foreign policy experience than either Bill Clinton or Ronald Reagan had when they were elected. Senator Obama has worked to confront 21st century challenges like proliferation and genocide on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He possesses the personal attributes of a great leader – an even temperament, an open-minded approach to even the most challenging problems, a willingness to listen to all views, clarity of vision, the ability to inspire, conviction and courage.

And Barack Obama does not use false charges and exaggerated claims to play politics with national security.

Hi Meiki,

Thank you for the feed back. I was writing that while I was half asleep hence all the grammatical errors. I should clarify that I would press the Obama Button and the Republicans would have us press the Clinton button.

Well everyOne,

I forgot to include the disclaimer that although McCain and Clinton have scandal affiliations, past performance is not always indicative of present performance as a result of evolution. There are few on the planet fit to judge McCain and Clinton and those that are, would not because they are aware that we were all born into a world of fiction and to judge anyone is to judge one’s self.

Of course that brings to light the reason we should all press the Obama Button.

Barack Obama who happens to be about the same age as me was born into a world with less fiction than it had at the time Clinton and McCaine were born.

So Obama was not indoctrinated with the dogma and fiction that Clinton and McCain had to deal with and embrace, and which is very hard to transcend. In fact Obams was born at a time Martin Luther King, Jr was in the process of destroying many fictions of the world. Barack Obama has a different level of consciousness that he acquired as a result of being born at a point in time that provided a more evolved framework. Barack Obama is at a different level of consciousness and that is why he appeals to so many that are also of the new consciousness which is most evident in the youth and younger generations.

This is not to disparage Clinton or McCain who were simply born at a more primitive time, rather we should help them to overcome the fictions they have been conditioned with and wish them great success in their roles as members of congress where I am sure they will help achieve the great things they speak of. Hopefully they will carry the wisdom from the past but spend no time dwelling on the events of the past that were born of fiction.

This means the neural framework in Obama’s brain is quite different from that of McCain and Clinton giving him unique capabilities that will accelerate the evolution of this country and raise it’s consciousness.

One of the most important capabilities of the New Consciousness president will be to destroy the fictional world we were born into with it’s subservience to the false self, and the restoration of the authentic self. The establishment of systems based on wisdom and intelligence not ignorance. New systems that serve the individual and the collective without being a detriment to either. Systems that do not create a disproportionate allocation of wealth or privilege.

OBAMA THE NEW CONSCIOUSNESS PRESIDENT
Facilitating the evolutionary advancement of a nation.

Call me at: Zen God GoGo

No kidding that is the coincidental mnemonic for a very special number.

Yes very good posts Richard and some funny stuff 2

har har

peace

"The president of the united states, will be a young male."

Regardless, currently I will not vote for Clinton after what I have seen and I will move back over to the republican party toward McCain or I will not vote - depending on if Obama is on the democratic ticket and after I see what McCain is all about. So I think Deepak is right in his assessment for many voters. It will go back to way it has always been ... the same old stuff that never ends nor changes. Everyone knows that president is pretty much a puppet anyway to their party and to all the other standard political groups. However, Obama appears to stand true to his values. Anyway, this is suppose to be a FREE nation and it's the reason that our Founding Fathers came to this country, as well as the spirit and heart behind the Constitution of the USA and it's not the way our country has turned out with all these wars and blocking our borders for those who are oppressed by their countries. We are a peaceful nation of freedom for all and we should act the part or lose our place and let another country (s) head the peace efforts, which seems to be what is happening because the USA cannot seem to get itself together. However, President Bush Jr. served is purpose, but I think went way overboard with his war plan. That's my personal 2 cents... of course.

Love, Char

Hello psy,

you write,"I admire the passionate and loyal intensity of your support for Hillary, but your choice of words in her defense is unlikely to win friends . . . or influence people, in her behalf"

Actually, psy, I am not expressing my opinion in order to win a vote for Hillary Clinton, I am just expressing my opinion for my own benefit. I like to look at and evaluate situations and circumstances in my environment and express my opinions. I think it is a fun thing to do. As far as the "haughty" remark goes I would say if the shoe doesn't fit...then by all means do not wear it...but I do, in fact, detect a splash of haughtiness from Barak Obama and I have noticed it in some of the bloggers who "rave" about him, now, you may not agree, and I do not think "all Barak Obama supporters are cut from the same cloth, so to speak, and I support everyone's free choice but when I read certain artcles on the Barak/Clinton competition I like to offer my two cents...

and, the thing about strident or vicious I am not sure if you are referring to me or the Clinton campaign...I do not think I am vicious in my comments nor do I think Hillary Clinton has been vicious in her campagin towards Barak Obama but I do think the press and media and washington pundits have been openly vicious to Hillary Clinton while being encouraging and complimentary towards Barak Obama from day one of this contest. And I think that has contributed to his soaring popularity. Now, I know Barak Obama is an extremely intelligent individual, so, why, as a politician, should he look a "gift horse" in the mouth..so what if his position is bettered by her vicious press and media attacks? When Barak Obama supporters such as Deepak Chopra rave about his "integrity", "his taking the high road" his not stooping to the "usual" campaign dirty tricks I have to disagree....Barak Obama's ability to know when to take advantage of a very good situation is not the same as being a man of higher morals, he has a press and media who are more than willing to save him the trouble of the fight while Hillary Clinton has constantly been put on the defense..so Barak Obama, imo, hasn't really had to fight for his comfy popular position, so far, imo, it's been kind of handed to him...and he doesn't seem to have a problem with that and neither do his supporters....afterall he is winning and that is what counts, but people have noticed that Barak's got it going on, in that regard, just like in some of his writings he doesn't always give credit where credit is really due but has no problems taking a big heap of credit and placing it on his plate and calling it his own, so, a man with charisma is just a man with charisma until he has proven otherwise and from where I sit Barak Obama hasn't proven a thing about his integrity, or his capabilities and the fact that he can inspire....doesn't mean much, so far the actual eight page record passed out to journalists wasn't at all as inspiring as his words.

as far as the strident thing goes, you have me there.:)

have a wonderful evening ruth

Messiahs tend to have not very good endings. Craig you know about Shabbatai Tzvi and what happened to him?

I hope if Obama gets elected is acts like a human, otherwise I don't care to venture what could happen to him and this country.

Dangerous ground here.

Steve

There's a game that a lot of little kids[even those born in the last ten years] have learned to play with their parents and teachers where one little kid will seduce and tempt another more agressive kid into doing something while pretending to be the good and innocent kid and the victim of the more agressive kid. The agressive kid is made to 'fess up.

Parents and teachers have a hard time in resolving the situation and getting at the truth that, paradoxically, the more agressive kid is usually the more honest and forthright.

That's what this post reminds me of. The far left of academia and so called intellectualism is demonizing an honest assessment of high-risk factors that are as obvious as the proverbial elephant in the room by characterizing it as shooting Santa Claus in front of the children.
The sophistry of these apologists is, to me, more dangerous than the bombast of the supposed agressor here.

I'm thinking Hillary voters and supporters are a lot smarter than they are being given credit for.
[And that would include you too Ruth! :))))]

bonnie

Good post.

I felt dismayed as Howard Dean was defeated by John Kerry who was defeated by The Trust Fund Boy.

It was a hard pill to swallow after spending weekends up in the Iowa snows, talking to people as though he (Dean) were a personal friend of mine.

But pragmatism won. Play it safe, so many people said. This Dean guy's too idealistic.

Dean's campaign imploded quickly. Then it was just sad and ridiculous: there was Kerry's hair and his ski brawls with Secret Service.

And President Exxon took it again.

I'm not sure how many more times we need to make the same mistake of hedging again.

We need to choose what we want. Not what we hope the political machinery will tolerate.

I think what Hillary did was just typical politics.

And she has shown herself to be just a typical politician.

BTW: Ethiopia has very low taxes. But I don't hear many Republicans clamoring to move there.

Hi, Ruth!
Would never refer to you as strident or vicious. Don't get that vibe, at all, and have enjoyed your Hillary-free posts for many months.

I hope you're wrong about Barack Obama not being the real deal and I know we both want to see the last of W and his cronies!

p.

No Spitzer discussion yet? Oh I fogot he is a democrat and they don't do these kinds of things, sorry never mind, I just thought maybe we would see screaming headlines from Gotham!! Ha!

Cheers,

Steve

Ambasteve: More than Gotham, the Newyorkers like Ruth who posts her daily political rants, victimization and grievances on the Open Thread should be asked that question.

Interesting... the NY Governor, the LA Mayor, the San Francisco Mayor, oh and Bill Clinton -- all high profile Hillary backers -- have something in common.

Well, now I know only what wiki has written of Shabbatai Tzvi!

If Obama became president and announced all Americans would have to become Muslims, the revolution I want would happen a lot quicker than anybody could imagine, in the opposite fashion than I hope for, and I am sure it would be quite a violent affair. I do no think American republican Protestants and Judaists or liberal Protestants and Judaists are going to convert to Islam or follow a man named Barack Hussein Obama into the abyss anytime soon . . .

All me is saying is that it certainly might be a refreshing change for somebody other than a white person to rule the mightiest free nation this world has ever known. As you brought up Ambasteve, did you see the look in Spitzer’s wife’s eyes? Hillary had the same look when Bill was shooting his anti-anti-stain removal all over the white house walls: the look of utter betrayal!

After that there is trust no more for any of them, to swallow pride, and whatever else, solely for the sake of power; they are not “standing by their men,” they are standing to lose their respective political careers and/or hundreds of millions of dollars. As for John Mad Dog War McCain, he is almost 72 years old, and anybody would be crazy to vote for a blond, and his blonde wife, that probably answered respectively incorrectly on as many SAT questions as Spitzer scored right. But then again, the "powers that be" love having simple-minded frontmen who can mindlessly mouth "terror," "freedom," "democracy" . . .!!!!

The Messiah will be a Jew (and he will probably physically appear to look a whole lot more like Obama than me), but Obama is far from being “the Messiah.” In fact, any brunette that appears on the scene will not get this Aryan killing for his, or his nation’s, ass; in fact, my Messiah will not ask me to kill anybody. My people, the blond portion, were fooled once: NEVER AGAIN!

I would vote for Russ Feingold in a New York minute, but the second he asked me to kill for him then we would have problems . . .

peace

What matters to you or to me, is imminently forgotten in the mayhem of politics which merely continues in putting new twists here and there, on a very old, ancient and corrupt dance of power over the people.

This gang-like, entertaining mentality of government, must cease to exist, if we are to hope for preservation of earth and human life for the next generations which inherit the earth from all of us.

It is a bad reflection on us as a human species, so intelligent, so wise, so powerful in building.. yet, we fail ourselves over and over again as we continue in failure, to provide food for all around the globe, housing, jobs, eliminating diseases in impoverished countries, where it would technically cost so little to irradicate over a period of a few years.

Instead, some governments allow the waste of billions of dollars a month, to destroy an innocent country like Iraq.

I doubt that any president, can stitch this shameful wound, without leaving a deep scar..

like.. Vietnam

we never hear of Bin Laden at all, at all anymore! Isn't he the reason for invading Iraq and his weapons of mass destruction hiding there?

war is good for nothing but power-mongering among the rich, famous and powerful.

When we want to stop being lambs to their slaughter.. we will.

If Americans wanted to stop the war in Iraq as they proclaim, all they had to do 7 years ago, was walk-out...a nation walk-out of jobs!!

But, nobody did, and now millions of innocent Iraqi men, women and children are dead, and continue to die.... for a gang-like government which drives its own country so deep in debt to countries with horrific records of current human rights violations...

Nope, I would not want my country to be indebted.

How Bush was able to do what he has to the US..to Iraq; is a nightmare 8 years as far as I am concerned...

Wow North!

That is about the most powerful indictment I have read in a while.

Powerful.

Amen

Amen! : )

goodthrusday all,

Well, I am writing this awaiting the resignation of Eliot Spitzer, for his truly head scratch behaviour in light of the "legal and moral" high ground he has been standing on for his entire political career.

oh, well, another one bites the dust.

Maybe, this is a good blog to mention and remind ourselves that we elect "men and women." Not "messiahs," not saints, not superpersons with morals above and beyond the average human. We can project all we want, but that will not make a Barak Obama the chosen one or Hillary Clinton the devil...no matter how much we try...they both have a little of each while working their game and trying to win the territory.

A Hillary Clinton Presidency will not sink our Nation, and, for sure, a Barak Obama Presidency will not save it...we will continue to muddle along in our ignorance long after both have left the playing field.

So, a messgae to the Barak supporters, that pedistal you are building keeps getting higher everyday...and the higher it gets the center of balance is certain to give...but, I am sure you all know that, right?

to Bonnie and psy..:)))))))))

will try to get back to IB later, gotta run now...have a great day everyone, ruth

hey, Amba, feel free to start a topic yourself, you do not have to wait for someone else to do it first......:))))))

If only men like Spitzer, could learn to control their urges; families would then never be decieved, severed of trust, and thrust into public light, for all the world to know. My heart is with Mrs. Spitzer, who's eyes looked like they'd cried an ocean of hurt, pain from the dis-loyalty of her husband Governor of NY!

How can society, continue to allow such behaviour in government, while at the same time, chastise, incarcerate and destroy the lower-laddered person for the same crimes of prostitution?

I always truly believed in "one set of laws" for all, but society continues to show the world; that power is a corrupted source of energy; one, which most "men" cannot seem to handle without succumbing to immoral, unethical practices while in office or power; but, it is that office, which "protects them" from common law, which means they are above the law, which means the rest of us or not.. which means, this is why jails are filled from poor peoples actions, and the same actions the rich/powerful do; are treated with kid-leather gloved treatment!

Men like Spitzer, Clinton, all those whom betray trust of family and country; cannot be trusted at all, at all... yet, we keep them "above the law" and in government positions, then hire them at fifty thousand dollars a dinner-speech for the rest of their days...

I am baffled by the hypocricy of law & government, and in my view; this election is a farce, a bandaid to repair eight years of hell the Bush admin. created...

It's become a torch-passing ceremony into the great hall of shame in the gang-run strategy of government.

I am not anti-government, I am only pro-vision for a better-run future for humankind with always high expectations of/from those whom have power over me sitting in government positions!

I do not expect more.. now, I demand more from my government representatives!!

(foot-stomping smiley inserted here)

Love, North

Character as Destiny: The Clintonian Narcissism of 2008

There is something stomach-turning about the Clintonian strategy for winning the nomination. Underneath that which is so disgusting, however, there are little passion plays playing out -- about the state of the nation, and the state of its soul-sick psyche. While there is no overt reason to conclude that they are racists, (if that sentence seems luke-warm, take a look at Hillary's own concession that Obama is not a Muslim), there is every possible reason to label the Clintons opportunists of the very first order. Bill Clinton was not a racist when he mouthed off in South Carolina; he was a desperate power-monger, flailing. Bob Johnson from BET doesn't really think Obama is a drug fiend -- it was just "an opportunity". Albeit a rather disgusting one. Howard Wolfson doesn't really think that Obama is like Ken Starr; it was just the sort of blind ad hominem news-cycle nonsense likely to distract from the actual, the real, the true; in other words -- it was opportunism. That is their true, true heartfelt religion. "Campaign" in Florida and then deny it? Fine: It's all fair game. Or the cynical suggestion by Senator Clinton that Obama would be a fine VP while at the same time declaring how unready he is seems to me precisely the sort of cynical paranoid post-modern solipsism of people who will say anything whatsoever to get what they want and then act stung when called on it. It borders on sociopathy. And like all opportunists, those in Camp Clinton have reached the conclusion that even a scorched earth campaign which devastates the party, vulgarizes the discourse even more than it already is vulgarized, and alienates millions of people who actually have come to hope for real change in this country, is worth the cost of a possible win. Personally, I find it far more likely that the only beneficiary of the Clintonian ugliness will of course be none other than that half-mad proponent of hundred-year wars, John McCain of Arizona, swooping in to the circular firing squad after the smoke and blood have cleared, so as to snatch a victory because the Dems cleverly snatched defeat.

Speaking of half-mad, speaking of snatching defeat -- the Clinton surrogacy of Geraldine Ferraro devolved in to an angry whine on the Today Show this morning. Ms Ferraro seems to think that Senator Obama has been the beneficiary of some sort of post-radical-chic "free-ride", a notion so laughable that it flies in the face of every last bit of information we have about what it means to not be white in America. Every single bit. She doesn't seem like a racist either, actually; merely an embittered ex-candidate and an old school feminist warrior whose legitimate passion has hardened into blindness and bile. (How did the Obama camp play "the race card" when it was she who launched into a dismissal of Senator Obama as "lucky" to be African-American.) I found myself telling the TV that Obama is where he is today in spite of being African-American. Still, Hillary Clinton's campaign seems to tap into something very real in this country -- the anger that many women carry over the costs incurred in the fight for gender equality for the last forty years.

Every day, one is struck by the (one-sided) viciousness in this fight. Six bloody weeks of it to go? Six weeks of coarsening opportunistic soulless nastiness. And the effect? Hillary Clinton's unfavorable rating amongst Obama supporters continues to rise according to the Wall Street Journal/MSNBC poll released tonight. The reverse is not true. And her coalition of white women and white blue-collar workers is unlikely to surge the way that young people and African-Americans are surging towards Obama. Those Americans -- the African-Americans who have been turned off by politics as usual and by total exclusion, the young who have been so disgusted by war-mongering and corruption so evident in the smug faces of those in power -- finally see in Obama something of the best in themselves, and something to aspire to: Idealism, dignity, hope, matched by strength and stoicism. Matched by a very keen sense of how to work the system.

In the meantime, the country itself needs to be repaired from inside out. Anti-intellectual, increasingly amoral, broke, and self-obsessed, a land of crumbling roads, crumbling dreams, and crumbling visions of how to care for the needy. A nation filled with invective and rudeness. (Have you ever seen how unmannerly the comments on HuffPost can be? If that is a reflection of how people are brought up today, then what is the point?) At the heart of how to repair a nation -- there is one essential ingredient to examine; and that, of course, is character. Over the next six weeks until Pennsylvania, we must think about that; the character of our leaders, of our nation. Because as Heraclites stated with total clarity -- character IS destiny.

--Jon Robin Baitz

Olbermann Slams Clinton in Special Comment: "You Are Campaigning As If Barack Obama Were The Democrat And You Were The Republican"

Huffington Post

Tonight, as promised, Keith Olbermann attacked Senator Hillary Clinton in a ten-minute "Special Comment," saying that he was not endorsing Barack Obama but that "events insist" that he speak and stand against her "tepid response" to the controversial remarks of Geraldine Ferraro wherein she said that Obama wouldn't have been as successful if he were not black. Last night Olbermann decried the statements as "clearly racist"; tonight, he followed up with a doozy in which he accused her of "campaigning as if Barack Obama were the Democrat and you were the Republican." In so doing, said Olbermann — in letting the opportunity to forcefully oppose Ferraro's comments pass her by — Olbermann said that Clinton had "missed a critical opportunity to do what was right."

Geraldine Ferraro has stood by her comments and denied that they were racist, saying on "NBC Nightly News" tonight that they were response to a specific question about why this election was special, and saying that it was the Obama campaign that was playing "this type of a race card." (See related video here.)

Olbermann chose to frame his comment in terms of bad choices on the part of Senator Clinton, stopping short of calling her inherently racist, instead casting the matter in terms of her receiving bad advice from the "tone deaf" and "arrogant" members of her campaign ("they are killing your chances of becoming president...[and] slowly killing the chances for any democrat to become president"). He characterized Ferraro's remarks as "a blind accusation of sexism and dismissing Senator Obama's campaign as some equal opportunity stunt," and decried her comments both in this instance and historically, pointing to the "cheap, ignorant vile racism that underlines them."

He also blamed her advisers for not pushing her to repudiate those comments immediately — unlike the remark by Obama advisor Samantha Power, who had called Clinton a "monster" and who was "gone by sunrise" from the Obama campaign. Olbermann specifically fingered (but did not name) Clinton campaign manager Maggie Williams, saying that instead of repudiating Ferraro's words — "words that should make any Democrat retch" — she was instead "letting her campaign manager bend them beyond all recognition into Sentaor Obama's fault...thus giving Ferraro nearly a week to [send the dialogue] back into the vocabulary of David Duke."

"Do you not see, Senator?" Olbermann asked. "Senator Clinton, this is not a campaign strategy. This is a suicide pact."

Olbermann took the opportunity to mention a number of other matters (or, in recent campaign parlance, to 'throw the kitchen sink' at Clinton), criticizing her also for the "shell-game about choosing Obama as Vice-President," as well as her husband Bill Clinton's comments about Jesse Jackson after the South Carolina primary, the "racial undertone of the 3 a.m. ad" and the "moment's hesitation" in her much-parsed answer on 60 minutes and said that after all the accrued episodes in which race had been implicated, people now "see a pattern" of racially-tinged remarks and associations with Clinton — though he carefully stopped short of definitively asserting its existence: "False or true, they see it," said Olbermann.

He was far more definitive about Ferraro, and that's where the comment returned in its final few minutes as Olbermann implored Clinton not to allow herself "to be perceived as standing next to — and standing by — racial divisiveness," and once again brought it back to her campaign members and what they had wrought. "Grab the reins back from whoever has led you to this precipice before it is too late," said Olbermann. "Voluntarily or inadvertently, you are still awash in this filth....your only reaction has been to disagree and call it "regrettable." Unless senator you say something definitive, the former congresswoman is speaking with your approval."

Said Olbermann, in a callback to Clinton's own stand taken at the last Democratic debate: "You must reject and denounce Geraldine Ferraro."

He finished with "Good night and good luck." OUCH.

Has anyone noticed that Hillary is methodically displaying the very stereotypes the right wing has attributed to her all these years? She seems dedicated to prove they were on target all along. Hillary is using the same slash and polarize tactics against someone in her own party that she previously reserved for outside opponents. Wasn't that blatant political blasphemy to proclaim that McCain is more qualified to be president than Obama? It's a knife in the back that the Party won't be able to extract very easily if Obama becomes the eventual candidate. The Republicans will have a scar they can rub sore with glee. A voter in Mississippi said it simply and directly: "You cannot treat your party members like they are your enemies." At least you can't if you have a modicum of grace and balance in your politics.

And what about Geraldine Ferraro's similar comment that Obama is an unqualified contender, only able to be in the race because of his skin color? This must be the first time in U.S history that someone has said that an individual has the upper hand in running for president because he's black. Her observation should go into the Guiness Book of Records. I don't know whether the stupidity of the idea or its viciousness is more remarkable. Ferraro was a high level operative in the Clinton campaign and was not reprimanded for sullying the debate, receiving only a gentle "I don't agree" slap on the wrist. Her continued vitriolic outbursts and the reactions to them led her to finally resign, apparently on her own volition. Hillary was virtually silent on the issues throughout this rancor-generating display by a member of her team.

To manipulate perceptions of the campaign, Hillary has appointed herself The Decider, anointed to establish which states are important and which are insignificant. Can you guess what she decided? The important ones are the few "big" states where she won the primaries. The others are merely "boutique" states (tell that to the people of Maryland, Illinois, and Minnesota). Now let's get this straight. Blue states that she won, like New York, California, and New Jersey, which regularly vote Democratic anyway, should count toward boosting her candidacy. But the many conservative Red states that Obama carried and could bring over to the Democratic side of the ledger in the election should count against boosting the Obama candidacy. This contorted, hocus-pocus reasoning is typical of the cynical Clinton campaign style. So is using fear, victimization, scolding, the gender card, the "how would I know if Obama is a Muslim?"card, the "finding my voice" card--and changing the inflection every day. Hillary, it seems, has come up with an inventive election strategy-driving up her negatives.

In case there's a feminist out there glaring at me, I'm not critical of Hillary because she's a woman, it's because she's Hillary. It's not her gender but her divisive, take-no-prisoners approach to politics that gets to me. I don't discriminate here. I feel exactly the same about husband Bill. And the thought of having them both back in the White House conducting business in the same manner as before is a bad dream. The kitchen sink, and surrounding equipment, should be fixtures in the White House, not weapons of political warfare. That style of politics wasn't good for the country when the Clintons lived there and will only bring gridlock and acrimony in the future.

It's true that the Clinton campaign has gotten some traction in recent weeks through a barrage of negatives. They've clobbered Obama above the belt and below. Some people think that's working. But in my view, Obama's quiet, intelligent, consistent decency will, over the long run, come through and win over a wide swath of the American public. And Hillary's caustic, unpalatable tactics, I'm convinced, will turn people off over time and backfire on her. I'm not starry-eyed in saying this. I believe, at this time in history, people are desperately looking for an upgraded political process, a change in tone that will foster civil dialogue and produce legislative results.

Let's get back to the famous right wing conspiracy. That cabal, or whatever they are, should be grateful to Hillary. She's given them a load of new ammunition they can use to bad mouth her and the Democrats if she chances to be the Party's candidate. Last week my friend phoned his wife who is away doing business in another city and she was gung ho over Hillary. This week when he phoned, the same woman couldn't believe the vicious tactics Hillary was using and said they were "appalling." The "conspiracy" guys would probably sneer, "I told you so." They would love to have her in their sights for the election so a bloody slugging match takes place, with conservatives, right wingers, and ordinary Republicans coming out in droves to vote against her and her party. The rest of us should be hoping for a different kind of candidate and a different kind of campaign.

Written by Jack Rothman

Jack is a Professor Emeritus at the UCLA School of Public Affairs, specializing in community organizing. He has recently published the seventh edition of his book, Strategies of Community Intervention (2008).

HIllary is showing her true colours in her campaign. She has little interest in what the common people want or need, as her wants and needs seem to take precidence!

Now, is this the kind of President the USA still wants?

POWER TO THE PEOPLE!(John Lennon)

Love, North

Barack Obama and the Politics of Dignity

Barack Obama is offering Americans dignity, and they're grabbing it with both hands. Dignity permeates his speeches, informs his policies, and is evident in his manner. Whether he intended to or not, Obama has become a herald of the politics of dignity.

But dignity for whom? For blacks and whites, for men and women, for gays and straights, for young and old, for rich and poor, and for immigrants and the native-born. Obama also reaches out to both sides of the aisle -- liberals and conservatives -- and to other nations and their leaders. Americans, eager to move beyond the fractiousness of identity politics and to end the standoff between libertarian and egalitarian ideologies, are lining up in support. They are ready for a leader committed to building a world of dignity for all.

* Email
* Print
* Comments

Buzz up!on Yahoo!

What exactly is the dignity that people crave? It's more than good manners, respect, and civility. It's the absence of indignity. The American people know that indignities inflicted on the world have diminished America's stature. They know that the indignities they and their fellow citizens are suffering at home are sapping the American spirit.

Barack Obama's campaign has been called a "phenomenon," one with the potential to swell into a movement. But to realize its promise, a movement must evolve from a call for change to a plan for removing the obstacles that stand in the way of that change. How can the energy that has crystallized around Obama's candidacy be effectively focused to fight the indignities of everyday life?

As the history of the women's movement shows, a movement can't deliver without identifying what it's against. The introduction of the word "sexism" provided the lens that brought gender inequity into focus and made it indefensible.

To fight back against indignity, we need to root out what causes it. The cause of indignity is not power, nor is it power differences. It is rather the abuse of power. To oppose indignity, we do not have to eliminate differences in power, nor the differences in rank that merely reflect them.

Rank is a useful tool of organization. When it's exercised with proper regard for the dignity of subordinates, we not only accept rank differences, we celebrate the people whose accomplishments have earned our respect. No one is more admired or loved than someone of high rank who treats everyone, regardless of rank, with dignity.

But, abuses of rank have no place in a dignitarian world and must go. Taking a page from the women's movement, if we are to combat such abuses effectively, we must first give them a name. Fortunately, there's a word at hand. By analogy with racism, sexism, and ageism, abuse of the power inherent in rank is rankism. Once named, you see it everywhere.

The outrage over corrupt executives is indignation over rankism. Sexual abuse by clergy is rankism. Elder abuse in life care facilities is rankism. The power of lobbyists to subvert the people's will is rankism. Photos of the humiliation of Iraqi prisoners gave the world a look at rankism's arrogant face. Hurricane Katrina made visible rankism's most common victims -- the sick, the elderly, the poor.

Like racism, rankism has its most debilitating impact on those lacking the protections of social rank -- the poor. And nowhere is rankism more dangerous than in foreign relations. International terrorism has multiple, complex causes, but one factor we can address is rankism between nations. There is no fury like that borne of chronic humiliation. Senator Obama understands that a vital part of a strong defense is not giving offense in the first place.

Rankism distorts personal relationships, erodes the will to learn, taxes economic productivity, and stokes international enmities. The effects on its victims are like those of racism and sexism on minorities and women. But, unlike these better-known isms, rankism knows no limits and plays no favorites. So long as anyone's dignity is at risk, everyone's is. With its inclusiveness, Obama's politics of dignity has struck a chord.

Before they'll march for justice, people will stand up for dignity. Obama has got them on their feet, and that's a start. The next step--building a dignitarian society -- is the work of several generations, but the hopes for a peaceful and prosperous twenty-first century rest on our taking it.

Robert W. Fuller is the author of All Rise: Somebodies, Nobodies, and the Politics of Dignity (2006). He is co-author, with Pamela Gerloff, of Dignity for All: Rankism Unmasked (forthcoming, Spring 2008).

Barack Obama is a Dignitarian-And He Doesn't Even Know It
by: Robert Fuller
(Ref. Post #42 above.)
Posted at OpenLeft

(A couple of weeks ago, I promoted a diary by Robert Fuller, "Barack Obama and the Politics of Dignity". He recently submitted it to Huffington Post, where it was a featured diary yesterday, garnering over 100 comments. As I've previously written, I believe that Fuller has identified a powerful organizing framework that would greatly strengthen Obama's candidacy if it were consciously embraced. So I invited him to write another piece for us, and helped out a bit in editing it. Please read, comment, and if you agree, pass it along to others--particularly those who could help bring it to Obama's attention.

- promoted by Paul Rosenberg)

Barack Obama is a dignitarian. Not a libertarian, not an egalitarian, but a dignitarian. What's it mean-"dignitarian"?

It means adding the phrase "equal dignity" to the familiar formula of "liberty and justice for all"-and not just giving it lipservice, but turning it into the keystone of a new politics.

Obama does this instinctively through his inclusiveness, his style, and his manners. The dignity he offers is for blacks and whites, for men and women, for gays and straights, for young and old, for rich and poor, and for immigrants and the native-born. He also reaches out to both liberals and conservatives, and to other nations and their leaders. Americans, eager to move beyond the fractiousness of the last two decades are lining up in support. They are ready for a leader committed to building a world of dignity for all-even though the concept itself is more felt than expressed or understood.

Now Senator Obama is being urged by some to adopt the tactics of his opponent and go negative. Another faction within his staff is urging him to stay above the fray. In this context, Obama has a chance to secure his grip on the nomination and win the election to follow. But he needs to do more than remain positive. He needs to make explicit his reasoning for what has been, up till now, his instinct for adhering to the politics of dignity.

Dignitarian politics means not condescending to voters and not treating your political opponents with indignity. It also means extending dignity in concrete practical ways to all our citizens.
Robert Fuller :: Barack Obama is a Dignitarian-And He Doesn't Even Know It
A full analysis of the politics of dignity puts meat on these bones. The quest for dignity lies behind countless different movements on behalf of oppressed or subordinated people, yet it extends beyond any particular group. It does not side against Catholics or Protestants in Northern Ireland. It sides with both of them. It does not side against Israelis or Palestinians. It sides with both of them. It does not side against Blacks or Latinos or women or men, it sides with all of them-because dignity is reciprocal and universal. Beyond the struggles against racism, sexism, ethnocentrism, etc., the universal quest for dignity struggles against rankism-the abuse of power to dehumanize another, in whatever form it may take.

Globally, the politics of dignity makes us safer, in contrast to the politics of indignity, which only increases our vulnerability. The indignities we inflict on others make them indignant and so predispose them to side with our enemies, if not turn against us themselves. In an interdependent world this is a losing strategy, both politically and environmentally.

This perspective has immediate consequences for how a campaign is conducted. If Obama is seen as reacting defensively to the indignities his opponents serve up, then he will appear weak. But if he goes on the offensive not against those opponents themselves, but rather in favor of the emergent politics of dignity, at which he is a natural, he will prevail.

Instead of going negative himself, he should openly and forecefully reject of the politics of indignity. By not only practicing dignitarian politics, but by committing to do so regardless of what his opponents do, he can put them on the defensive-or force them to do the same. Obama could tell voters that if politics as usual is what they want in a leader then they should not vote for him. But, if they're ready for a politics of dignity, then he's their man.

In doing so he will position himself to usher in what we can no longer do without-a dignitarian global politics.

Obama Converts to Judaism

Buffeted by criticism of his controversial Christian pastor while continuing to quell rumors that he is a Muslim, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill) took a bold step today to settle questions about his religious faith once and for all.

"I am converting to Judaism, effective immediately," Mr. Obama told reporters at a press conference in Scarsdale, New York, adding that he would change his middle name from "Hussein" to "Murray."

As a sign of commitment to his new faith, the Illinois Senator said that he anticipated being Bar Mitzvahed sometime between now and the crucial Pennsylvania primary and that he would no longer campaign on Saturdays.

In a subtle sign of the shift in his religious affiliation, Mr. Obama's signature catchphrase "Yes, we can," was nowhere to be found in his speech, replaced instead by "L'Chaim."

While some political observers praised Mr. Obama's conversion to Judaism as a shrewd tactic to put the issue of his religious identity to rest, the move raised the ire of one of his harshest critics, former Rep. Geradline Ferraro.

"Barack Murray Obama wouldn't be in the position he's in if he wasn't Jewish," said Ms. Ferraro to herself.

By Andy Borowitz. He is a comedian and writer whose work appears in The New Yorker and The New York Times, and at his award-winning humor site, BorowitzReport.com. He is the host of "Countdown to '08" at the 92nd Street Y on Tuesday, May 13 at 8 PM with his special guests Susie Essman (HBO's Curb Your Enthusiasm) and Jeffrey Toobin (CNN, bestselling author of The Nine.

***

One person commented:

You can't pull the wool over my eyes, Borowitz. Obama is not only a Muslim as well as an angry black Christian, but he has also been a Jew for some time. Do you think nobody notices that his FIRST name, "Barack", is exactly the same as the LAST name of Ehud Barack, the Minister of Defense of ISRAEL!Not only that, his last name, OBAMA, proves that he is Japanese. And you know what the Japs did to us at Pearl Harbor.