But But, Dr. Chopra, Obama fails to walk on water!

Campaign tries to spin: insists he was "swimming."

Forget the pundits and commentators.

The constant theme last night in the coverage of the Berlin speech that Obama delivered was the refrain: "We'll see what the voters think".... GREAT News, VOTERS LOVED IT! Check the latest Rasmussen Reports on his speech.

" Over half of Americans (55%) rate Barack Obama’s historic speech in Berlin yesterday good or excellent, and the Democratic presidential candidate is experiencing a modest bounce over John McCain nationally in the latest Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll.

Even nearly a third of Republicans (32%) give the speech good or excellent marks, but Democrats are far more enthusiastic, with 75% feeling that way. However, 39% of Republicans rate the speech Poor versus only five percent (5%) of Democrats. Forty-seven percent (47%) of unaffiliated voters say the speech was good or excellent, while 16% characterize it as Poor."

::::

Obama has even managed to win over the Bush-Friendly Sarkozy.

Conservative, The Politico, reports:

"Obama? He's my pal," the president told Le Figaro. "Unlike my diplomatic advisers, I never believed in Hillary Clinton's chances. I always said that Obama would be nominated."

Sarkozy added that an Obama victory "would validate" his strategy of reconcilation with the United States. His embrace of the United States has made him American conservatives' favorite Continental politician, but he doesn't seem to be reciprocating."

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0708/Sarkozy_Obamas_my_pal.html

:::::::::::

And the Media Coverage of Obama's overseas trip has finally broken into polling:

"The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Friday shows a bounce for Barack Obama. The presumptive Democratic nominee attracts 46% of the vote while John McCain earns 41%. When "leaners" are included, it’s Obama 49% and McCain 44%. Just three days ago, the candidates were tied at 46% (with leaners).

This is the first time that Obama has enjoyed a five point advantage since July 8. It’s also the first time he has reached the 49% level of support since that date. In June, Obama’s support stayed within a point of the 49% level virtually every day and the Democrat typically led by about five percentage points. The race has been closer over the past couple of weeks (see recent daily results). As with any bounce in the polls, it will take a few days to determine whether it reflects a lasting change in the race or is merely statistical noise."

www.rasmussenreports.com

Rasmussen just called it a BOUNCE; likely because only Rasmussen can see the individual day to day numbers. To go from tied to a 5 point lead in 2 days of polling indicates that Obama's numbers last night were off the chart. This all the while the RNC and FOX News try to set forth a Meme that the trip has not been working.

::::::::::::::

Gallup is just out with their tracking

Obama: 47% (45%)
McCain: 41% (43%)

www.gallup.com/poll/109105/Gallup-Daily-Obama-There-Europe-Effect.aspx

The write up offered by Gallup gives all sorts of scenarios in the face of a solid night of polling Thursday, meanwhile Rasmussen finds strong evidence that the speech/trip are having an impact, or in the least, being well received. A one day move of 4% is pretty heady stuff, confirming Rasmussen. I honestly can't think of another time this year that BOTH trackers moved in the same direction by the same amount overnight.

The question now becomes: Will Obama crack 50% next week?? These overnights must be pushing that 50% mark, never yet broken in either tracking.

Oh...oh...oh yes....omigod....oh...uh..uh...oh.oooooooh...yes, yes...don't stop....ohohoh....aaiiieee...uh, uh, uh, uh......whew......I need a cigar....

sorry folks...i know that was a little personal, but i just had my first Obagasm!! That Kama Sutra stuff really works! Those ears...they just really do it for me!!

Deepak...to be so smart...you can write some of the dumbest shit ever! and you called Ronald Reagan vacuous! I think NBC, or one of the networds has a comedian contest...you should enter!

oh well...love you anyway!!

:)

Dear Deepak,

Back in the early days of the campaign I was frustrated by the fact that the three top tier candidates were all relatively inexperienced and that the more far more experienced candidates in the second tier were being ignored. As the year went on it became increasingly clear that this situation was not going to change and that the top tier presented the only viable choices for the nomination.

During this period I evaluated the candidates further, including reading Obama’s books and speeches, as well as some of the occasional in depth interviews which could be found among all the usual meaningless media clutter. From doing this I found two important things about Obama. Ideologically I found him preferable to the conservative populism of Clinton and Edwards, and I was impressed by his intelligence and grasp of the issues. It certainly should not come as a surprise that a professor of Constitutional law has been impressive when speaking or writing topics such as civil liberties and separation of church and state. His grasp of foreign policy was also impressive, including but not limited to his initial opposition to the Iraq war.

M.J. Rosenberg noted that Obama “knows his stuff” in a post on the success of his overseas trip:

_________________________________________________________
"I worked on Capitol Hill for 20 years and I can tell the difference between a staff driven politician and one who knows what he’s talking about. The staff driven pol (McCain is an example) is always capable of the big blunder. He does not mix up Shiites and Sunnis because he “misspoke;” he really doesn’t know the difference. Same on the economy, he studies a memo and works to assimilate it. But there is no depth.

The sad fact is that most of our politicians are like that. On the Arab-Israeli issue, all they know is that they need to sound pro-Israel. So they end up mouthing the most superficial pieties. They are afraid to talk about the Palestinians because they might say the wrong thing.

They pander and pander, knowing that they won’t get into trouble by just sucking up.

Not Obama.

He is pro-Israel and he supports the two-state solution. He is for keeping Jerusalem undivided but supports resolving Jerusalem’s status in negotiations. He acknowledges the Iranian threat to Israel but does not endorse a military response to deal with it.

So what’s Obama’s secret. He’s smart. He reads. He knows his sh*t. And that is why the Republicans who are counting on him to lose this election through some verbal blunder are going to be disappointed.

I’m not saying that McCain cannot win. He can. But he’ll have to win it. Obama is not going to hand this election to him by stumbling.

I just talked to a friend who saw Obama in Israel. I asked him what his friends in the Israeli media are saying. “What are they saying? They are saying that he’s the next President. And they think he’s the smartest American politician they have seen yet.”

Me too."
_________________________________________________________

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/07/23/obamas_tour_the_secret_to_the/

More experience might be of value, but in a situation where we needed a change from the status quo a relative Washington outsider such as Obama might have been the best choice. I would sure rather have someone like Obama who knows his stuff, and who even reads, as opposed to someone like John McCain who has far more experience but is totally lacking in substance.

"Obama fails to walk on water!

Campaign tries to spin: insists he was "swimming."

Irvine Welsh

HA!

Obama draws large crowds but

fails to pull sword from stone.

Skinny writes:

"Deepak [...] you called Ronald Reagan vacuous! "

I think those Deepak words are very charitable.

Reagan was a bumbling idiot who wrecked the economy till the Democrats bailed him out. His trickle down economics failed miserably and it was only by pumping tax money into the economy that it recovered somewhat. He signed tax increases quite easily when his policies failed.

His great military victories Grenada, Lebanon.

Most of his administration of kooks and crooks either ended up in jail or joining this administration to finish the job for Reagan which was totally screwing up this country.

A legacy of debt, incompetence and failure at least with Reagan you can blame some of it on the senility that was being covered up.( I guess that a working mind is not important to conservatives.) Yep your hero was a decrepit old man shilling for the elite who bought and paid for him because he could be fooled and manipulated easily. He even kept forgetting he didn't serve in the military and would often confused movies he was in with his military experience. Don't believe go read actual history books.

If you are a conservative in the mold of Reagan who built his "coalition" on fear and ignorance, you must be a shallow pompous hypocrite utterly bereft of analytical capability and basic morality.

If you worship Reagan you must be a believer in doubling the national debt and cutting and running when attacked by terrorists.

I think your ship is just leaving the dock -- there may still be time to catch it...

Hello Deepak!
It gives me chills to be able to witness whatever this is that is taking place. I was born 1 month before John Kennedy died. I didn't have the pleasure of full awareness to experience his brilliance firsthand. But my entire life has been impacted by him, his boundary breaking vision, his perception of the forces that create change, his eloquence and ability to convey this message to people from every walk of life, and his ability to understand the human experience on so many levels. In the most basic way, he was human, and he cared. And he spoke to people when they needed a voice. He was the voice of so many.

Barack is the voice today. Isn't it amazing that not only in this country but all around the world, he is a voice for so many. You are a voice for many, Deepak, all around the world. What is required to continue to inspire? Is there a secret, or do you just remain one with your purpose and let it happen, going with the flow?

Much love,
Sharon

Ref. #3

I have been following Skinny's comments addressed to Deepak and other Intentblog posters over a period...

From a Commentary by Dan Berkow, here's some insight into the nature of his posts...behavior and personality:

LEARN TO UNDERSTAND THE DOUBLE-BIND PARALYSIS:

Here are common examples;

"You are an idiot."

"You are an idiot :)"

Note your reaction to each statement.

"Shut up and go away."

"Shut up and go away :)"

Note your reaction to each statement.

The 'Double-Bind' is applied for several reasons, and is blatantly manipulative behavior:

_1 Overt hostile acts or speech automatically expose the motives and nature of the one acting-out; to disguise, one pastes a smile. "Smile when you say that".

_2 Double-binding is ruthless control; it inflicts paralysis by trapping between aversion and desire, but is only effective against the inexperienced and unsophisticated. A threat delivered with a smile, is still a threat. When one is confronted with a threat, one wishes to run away, but if at the same time, there is a smile, even a mock-smile, one may be undecided as to what course of action to take.

_3 Double-binding is done by those who have no other alternative; double-binders, as a broad class of people, were raised via double-bind control tactics, and thus know no other way of behaving. Such individuals are to be pitied, but also carefully avoided until the skill of abiding is firmly in place.

_4 Individuals who apply double-bind control to others, are desperately lonely, yet in terror of actual human contact; typically, intense drama follows such individuals, and they bring it with them always.

_5 Double-binders, living exclusively in an self-created universe of CONTROL, inevitably struggle with others for control and dominance; there are precious few moments of equanimity, to be found in continual power-struggle. The double-binder has a ready menu of blame close at hand; no act which they commit, can be classified as 'wrong', for all of their acts are done 'for the good of others'.

_6 Sentimental mock-love replaces actual empathy and compassion, as the expression of the double-binder; love becomes a veritable fetish, rather than a literal reality. Because it is inherently false, sentimentality cannot be maintained without constant reinforcement, and the best 'source' of reinforcement is found in power-conflict with others. Living a lifestyle of control is guaranteed to be a rich source of conflict, and each conflict is exploited to reinforce the identity of the double-binder as 'good'. This is of course done by the method of making the other 'bad'.

_7 The double-bind control artist will always avert attention away from what they are really doing, by donning the mantle of virtue, as they aggress upon others. In the private logic of the control artist, it is plain that those who offer opposition, are 'against what is good' and thus 'deserver what they get'.

It is up to everyone to simply avoid playing the game of the double-binding control artist; if ignored, they will protest that they are unappreciated for the good that they do, and will also point with alarm to those who oppose them, to rouse the 'rabble' to actions against those who are the targets of control. If ignored, they will begin to tearfully protest, to ask if their good is not seen, and to be understood to be active agents of 'good', striking fear into the closed hearts of those who would get away with being 'out of control'.

Overall, the double-binder NEEDS opposition, and they are sure to arouse it by their words and acts. This need is really for the purpose of maintaining an identity of 'virtuous', while indulging in blatant aggressive acts of paralysis and control over others. Predictably, words are spoken which point to the evil of others, and how the existence of those 'evil others' stands as justification for 'strong action'.

Double-binding is, in a sense, the ultimate test of our ability to abide. On the face of it, it is silly, the acts of a stupid person who cannot see; yet, by sheer persistence, it is itself a thorn in the side of everyone. To learn how to abide the persistent presence of the double-binding control-artist is indeed a high calling!

Sheesh I wonder If Mccain is electable? after that..
Well, we'll know in just a few short months.
The Massaih? me thinks not. Electable pres, Maybe.

Aloha Deepak and Everyone

A new start has a chance, it is a given. The time of empires are over. It doesn't matter who gets in, for we live in a fractal universe. Be the change you want to see. You can never place your foot in the same place in a river. Be kind to all, elect nobody president, while you vote for Obama. His wife will do a wonderful job.

love patty

"The Massaih? me thinks not."

Indeed Tammy, that's over-selling him more than a little bit, wouldn't you say?

Its a right wing meme. It lives on when we are skeptical/suspicious if someone has too much charisma and vision and that sort of thing.

In #4, I posted on how Obama “knows his stuff.” This proves a welcome contrast from George Bush, who clearly does not. Recent statements from John McCain have raised the question as to how much John McCain really knows about current international problems. There are a large number of gaffes he has made on a subject which is supposedly his strong point.

We expect liberal outlets to spread around the details of all of John McCain’s gaffes (just as the conservative blogs have enjoyed Barack Obama’s claim to have campaigned in fifty-seven states). Now coverage of McCain’s increasingly frequent gaffes has been picked up by the leading Conservative blog The Poltico, starting with these recent examples:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/11939.html

_______________________
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said “Iraq” when he apparently meant “Afghanistan” on Monday, adding to a string of mixed-up word choices that is giving ammunition to the opposition.

Just in the past three weeks, McCain has also mistaken “Somalia” for ”Sudan,” and even football’s Green Bay Packers for the Pittsburgh Steelers.
_______________________

While seeing documentation of every gaffe has become increasingly common in the You Tube era, in McCain’s case they tend to be far more frequent, and are often concentrated on foreign affairs, which McCain claims to be an area of expertise. The article later has a more detailed review of his gaffes:

__________________________________________________
“First Gaffe of Obama Trip … Goes To McCain,” blared Monday afternoon’s banner headline on the left-leaning Huffington Post, accompanied by a photo of McCain appearing to slap his forehead.

That referred to an ABCNews.com posting asserting that McCain appeared to confuse Iraq and Afghanistan in a “Good Morning America” interview with ABC’s Diane Sawyer, who asked whether the “the situation in Afghanistan is precarious and urgent.”

McCain responded: “I’m afraid it’s a very hard struggle, particularly given the situation on the Iraq/Pakistan border,” McCain said. The ABC posting added: “Iraq and Pakistan do not share a border. Afghanistan and Pakistan do.”

Unfortunately for McCain, that wasn’t an isolated slip. Among the other lapses:

• “Somalia” for “Sudan” — As recounted in a reporter’s pool report from McCain’s Straight Talk Express bus on June 30, the senator said while discussing Darfur, a region of Sudan: “How can we bring pressure on the government of Somalia?”

Senior adviser Mark Salter corrected him: “Sudan.”

• “Germany” for “Russia” — A YouTube clip from last year memorializes McCain referring to Vladimir Putin of Russia — following a trip to Germany — as “President Putin of Germany.”

• This spring, McCain said troops in Iraq were “down to pre-surge levels” when in fact there were 20,000 more troops than when the surge policy began.

• Also this spring, McCain twice appeared to mistake Sunnis and Shiites, two branches of Islam that split violently.

• In Phoenix earlier this month, McCain referred to “Czechoslovakia,” which has been divided since Jan. 1, 1993, into the Czech Republic and Slovakia. He also referred to Czechoslovakia during a debate in November and a radio show in April.

• In perhaps the most curious incident, McCain said earlier this month that as a prisoner of war in Vietnam, he had tried to confuse his captors by giving the names of Pittsburgh Steelers starting players when asked to identify his squadron mates. McCain has told the story many times over the years — but had always referred correctly to the names he gave as members of the Green Bay Packers.
__________________________________________________

Besides the problem of having so many gaffes on foreign policy matters, the gaffes create another problem for McCain:

_______________________________
But McCain’s mistakes raise a serious, if uncomfortable question: Are the gaffes the result of his age? And what could that mean in the Oval Office?

Voters, thinking about their own relatives, can be expected to scrutinize McCain’s debate performances for signs of slippage.

Every voter has a parent, grandparent or a friend whose mental acuity declined as they grew older. It happens at different times for different people — and there is ample evidence many in their 70s are as sharp and fit as ever.

In McCain’s case, his medical records, public appearances and travel schedule have suggested he remains at the top of his game.

But his liberal critics have been pouncing on every misstatement as a sign that he’s an old man.

Already, late-night comics have made McCain’s age an almost nightly topic, with CBS’s David Letterman getting a laugh just about any time he says the words “McCain” and “nap” in the same sentence.

Last week, McCain tried to defuse the issue by pretending to doze off during an appearance with NBC’s Conan O’Brien."
___________________________________

Regardless of the reason for the gaffes, they do not help McCain’s campaign themes of both having more experience on foreign policy and of Barack Obama being too inexperienced.

Fred Kaplan asks, How Much Does John McCain Really Know About Foreign Policy. He answers with a subtitle saying, “Not As Much As He’d Like You To Think.” Kaplan notes that some questioned if Obama would make any damaging gaffes on his overseas trip, and then moves on to McCain:

__________________________________________________________
"But, of course, it was Obama’s opponent, John McCain—the war hero and ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee—who uttered these eyebrow-raisers. “Czechoslovakia” was clearly a gaffe, and understandable for anyone who was sentient during the Cold War years. What about the others, though? Were they gaffes—slips of the tongue, blips of momentary fatigue? Or did they reflect lazy thinking, conceptual confusion, a mind frame clouded by clichéd abstractions?

If Obama had blurted even one of those inanities (especially the one about the Iraq-Pakistan border), the media and the McCain campaign would have been all over him like red ants on a wounded puppy.

McCain caught almost no hell for his statements—they were barely noted in the mainstream press—most likely because they didn’t fit the campaign’s “narrative.” McCain is “experienced” in national-security matters; therefore, if he says something that’s dumb or factually wrong, it’s a gaffe or he’s tired. Obama is “inexperienced,” so if he were to go off the rails, it would be a sign of his clear unsuitability for the job of commander in chief.

It may be time to reassess this narrative’s premise—or to abandon it altogether and simply examine the evidence before us. Quite apart from the gaffes, in formal prepared speeches, McCain has proposed certain actions and policies that raise serious questions about his suitability for the highest office. As president, he has said, he would boot Russia out of the G-8 on the grounds that its leaders don’t share the West’s values. He would form an international “League of Democracy” as a united front against the forces of autocracy and terror. And though it’s not exactly a stated policy, he continues to employ as his foreign-policy adviser an outspoken, second-tier neoconservative named Randy Scheunemann, who coined the term “rogue-state rollback” and still prescribes it as sound policy."

http://www.slate.com/id/2195865/?from=rss
__________________________________________________________

Kaplan proceeded to discuss these points in more detail, showing little respect for McCain’s knowledge of foreign policy.

Dr. Chopra for POTUS! Yeah baby!

Excellent Obama interview over at the Jerusalem Post (click me name).

Just don't read warmonger number 1# Caroline Glick (but her and Coulter in a catfight would be fun viewing, "I'm more right-wing than you bitch" BAM, "no, I am you tramp" WHAMMO, "I am going to perfect you Glick, here take this, 'Jesus saves, Jesus saves'" CRASH-BAM-BOOM!: he-he!). Holy bromiding bimbos Batman they got books in those claws too!

Ok, ok, wipe the mind of such puerile fantasizing . . .

Justin Raimondo has some good points though: http://[DELINKER]antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=13183

Don't forget to take out the [DELINKER]

pax vobiscum

I came across this from First Read:
____________________________
"In his interview with NBC’s Kelly O’Donnell, which will air on NBC’s Nightly News tonight, McCain questions whether Obama should have given a speech in Berlin before becoming president.

“I would rather speak at a rally or a political gathering any place outside of the country after I am president of the United States,” McCain told O’Donnell. “But that’s a judgment that Sen. Obama and the American people will make.”

However, on June 20, McCain himself gave a speech in Canada — to the Economic Club of Canada — in which he applauded NAFTA’s successes. An implicit message behind that speech was that Obama had been critical of the trade accord. Also, McCain’s trip to Canada was paid for by the campaign."

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/07/24/1220326.aspx
______________________

This could be framed as a yet another example of something McCain forgot, or perhaps one could even question if McCain realizes that Canada is outside of the United States. What this really represents is yet another example of how weak McCain’s criticism of Obama has become, and how he now looks like someone who will say anything in the hopes of picking up political points.

Oh, and McCain is also being criticized today for forgetting Afghanistan, as well as Canada.

www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/another-john-mccain-gaffe_b_114797.html

Apparently, he forgot Afghanistan when he referred to Iraq as the first major conflict after 9/11.

Obama Campaign Hits McCain.

McCain has been trying to score a hit on Obama on Iraq for weeks, stepping up the rhetoric and the absurdities.

Today, speaking before the American GI Forum, McCain stated:

"Eighteen months ago, America faced a crisis as profound as any in our history. Iraq was in flames, torn apart by violence that was escaping our control. Al Qaeda was succeeding in what Osama bin Laden called the central front in their war against us. The mullahs in Iran waited for America’s humiliation in Iraq, and the resulting increase in their influence. Thousands of Iraqis died violently every month. American casualties were mounting. We were on the brink of a disastrous defeat just a little more than five years after the attacks of September 11, and America faced a profound choice. Would we accept defeat and leave Iraq and our strategic position in the Middle East in ruins, risking a wider war in the near future? Or would we summon our resolve, deploy additional forces, and change our failed strategy? Senator Obama and I also faced a decision, which amounted to a real-time test for a future commander-in-chief. America passed that test. I believe my judgment passed that test. And I believe Senator Obama’s failed."

***************

Obama Camp Response to McCain GI Forum Speech:

The American people are looking for a serious debate about the way forward in Iraq and Afghanistan, and angry, false accusations will do nothing to accomplish that goal. Barack Obama and John McCain may differ over our strategy in Iraq, but they are united in their support for our brave troops and their desire to protect this nation. Senator McCain’s constant suggestion otherwise is not worthy of the campaign he claimed he would run or the magnitude of the challenges this nation faces,

Fact Check on McCain Speech to the American GI Forum

MCCAIN RHETORIC ON IRAQ: "From the early days of this war, I feared the administration was pursuing a mistaken strategy, and I said so." [McCain remarks to the American GI Forum, as prepared for delivery, 7/25/08]

THE FACTS: During the "early days of the war," McCain offered rosy predictions, not criticism of the Bush administration:

· EARLY 2003: MCCAIN PREDICTED A SHORT WAR IN IRAQ, SAYING "WE WILL BE WELCOMED AS LIBERATORS"

McCain: Predicted a "Brief, Successful War In Iraq." In March 2003, just prior to the start of military operations in Iraq, McCain said on the floor of the Senate, "The costs of these enterprises are not known with any degree of certainty at this time. Nor are the costs we will incur after what I believe, what I fervently, hope, will be a brief, successful war in Iraq, as we seek to establish the foundations for a peaceful, stable and democratizing Iraq." McCain also added, "I believe the war in Iraq can be concluded successfully in a relatively brief time." [Congressional Record, 3/18/03]

McCain Proclaimed "There’s No Doubt In My Mind...That We Will Be Welcomed As Liberators." "There’s no doubt in my mind that once these people are gone that we will be welcomed as liberators," McCain said on MSNBC’s Hardball in March 2003. [MSNBC, "Hardball", 3/24/03]

McCain: Iraq War Will Be "Relatively Short." During a March 2003 interview on NBC’s "Meet the Press," McCain said, "I believe that this conflict is still going to be relatively short. I believe we’ve achieved significant goals and successes." [NBC, "Meet the Press," 3/30/03]

McCain: End of Iraq War "Very Much In Sight." In interview on ABC’s Good Morning America, McCain was asked "At what point will America be able to say the war was won?" McCain replied. "We’ve still got the oil fields in the north that have to be secured. Tikrit, Saddam Hussein’s hometown, I would imagine there’ll be some die hards there that, but I think that we, it, it’s clear that the end is very much in sight, and today I think Americans should be very proud of their leadership, their technology...There are still some foreigners, Syrians and others hanging around. But it won’t be long. It will be a fairly short period of time, but this happens in wars. I’m confident that once they are confident the area is no longer a threat to the Marines and to or army troops that they’ll start imposing discipline. In the meantime, we’ll have a short period of chaos." [ABC, "Good Morning America", 4/9/03]

McCain Said He Was "Sure" The End Of Conflict In Iraq Was Near. During an appearing on "Lou Dobbs Moneyline," McCain was asked, "Is it your judgment that we are near the end of this conflict?" McCain replied, "Oh, I’m sure that’s true." [CNN, "Lou Dobbs Moneyline," 4/10/03]

· Summer 2003: McCain Said the "Major Conflict" Was Over In Iraq

McCain: "The Major Conflict" Is Over. McCain said in 2003, "I have said a long time that reconstruction of Iraq would be a long, long, difficult process, But the conflict, the major conflict is over ... The regime change is accomplished." [Fox News, "Your World with Neil Cavuto," 6/11/03]

McCain Proclaimed "Massive Victory" in Iraq and Credited Combat-Readiness for "Our Victory" in Afghanistan and Iraq. "Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom demonstrated to the world what we saw just 12 years ago. We went to war as the most combat-ready force in the world. The value of that readiness is clear. We won a massive victory in a few weeks, and we did so with very limited loss of American and allied lives. We were able to end aggression with minimum overall loss of life, and we were even able to greatly reduce the civilian casualties of Afghani and Iraqi citizens. . . . Our technology edge in Afghanistan and Iraq would have been meaningless if we did not have men and women trained to use it. Having the best weapons system platforms in the world would not have given us our victory if we had not had the right command and control facilities, maintenance capabilities, and munitions." [Congressional Record, 5/22/03]

McCain: The Mission Is "Accomplished." In an interview with Salon.com. McCain said, "I just think — as I said — I think we will find weapons of mass destruction. Now, I think it’s entirely appropriate now that regime change has been orchestrated — and though the danger is certainly not over, the mission is ‘accomplished’ — it’s appropriate to have a hearing." [Salon, 6/13/03]

**********

MCCAIN RHETORIC ON VETERANS: "Whatever our commitments to veterans cost, we will keep them, as you have kept every commitment to us." [McCain remarks to the American GI Forum, as prepared for delivery, 7/25/08]

THE FACTS: McCain has repeatedly opposed increased funding for veterans health care, and against funding for our troops:

· MCCAIN REPEATEDLY VOTED AGAINST, AND OBAMA REPEATEDLY VOTED FOR, INCREASED FUNDING FOR MILITARY EQUIPMENT FOR OUR TROOPS

Obama Voted For And McCain Voted Against $360 Million for Armored Vehicles for Troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. In 2005, Obama voted for and McCain voted against providing $360.8 million for armored tactical wheeled vehicles for units deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan and $5 million to establish ballistics engineering research centers at two major research institutions. The measure against which McCain voted also required such centers to advance knowledge and application of ballistics materials and procedures to improve the safety of land-based military vehicles. [HR 2863, Vote 248, 10/5/05, Passed 56-43: R 13-42 D 42-1 I 1-0]

Obama Voted TWICE Against And McCain Voted TWICE For And Keeping Capital Gains Tax Cuts, Rather Than Using the Savings to Replace or Repair Equipment for Troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. In 2005, Obama voted for and McCain voted against repealing the extension of capital gains tax cuts and use the savings to repair, rehabilitate or replace the equipment used by the Army and Marine Corps in Afghanistan & Iraq. A week later, prior to the issuance of a conference report regarding that measure, Obama voted for and McCain voted against a measure to "insist that conference report include funding to strengthen America’s military, as contained in Senate-passed amendment, instead of any extension of tax cuts for capital gains and dividends (which do not expire until 2009), as contained in House-passed bill." [HR 4297, Vote 8, 2/2/06, Passed 44-53: R 1-52 D 42-1 I 1-0; HR 4297, Vote 18, 2/14/06, Failed 45-55: R 1-54 D 43-1 I 1-0]

McCain Voted Against Providing An Additional $322 Million for Troops’ Safety Equipment, Including Body Armor. In 2003, McCain voted against an amendment to provide an additional $322 million for battlefield clearance and safety equipment for U.S. troops in Iraq. As National Journal noted, the amendment would have provided funding for "soldiers’ body armor, communications and other equipment." The increased spending would have been offset by a reduction in Iraqi reconstruction funds. [S 1689, Vote 376, 10/2/03, Passed 49-37: R 46-0 D 2-37 I 1-0; National Journal’s CongressDaily, 10/3/03]

McCain Opposed $1 Billion For Equipment For National Guard. In 2003, McCain opposed providing $1 billion for equipment for the National Guard and Reserves. [S 762, Vote 116, 4/2/03, Passed 52-47: R 51-0 D 1-46 I 0-1]

· MCCAIN REPEATEDLY VOTED AGAINST INCREASES AND OBAMA VOTED FOR INCREASE FOR VETERANS HEALTH CARE BENEFITS

Obama Voted For And McCain Voted Against Increasing Funding For Military And Veterans Hospitals By Limiting Dividend And Capital Gains Tax Cuts To Individuals Earning Less Than $1 Million. In 2006, Obama voted for and McCain voted against providing $19 billion for military and veterans hospitals, offset by limiting the dividend and capital-gains tax rates to individuals earning less than $1 million. [HR 4297, Vote 7, Failed 44-53: R 1-52; D 42-1 (ND 38-1, SD 4-0); I 1-0; 2/2/06]

Obama Voted For And McCain Voted Against Adding Nearly Half-A-Billion Dollars In Funding For Veterans Health Care In Wake Of $1.2 Billion Shortfall. In 2006, Obama voted for and McCain voted against adding $430 million for outpatient and inpatient health care and treatment for veterans. [HR 4939, Vote 98, 4/26/06, Passed 84-13, D 41-0; R 42-13; I 1-0; The Independent Budget, A Budget for Veterans by Veterans, 2/10/06; Newsweek, 1/19/06]

Obama Voted Against And McCain Voted For Tripling TRICARE Fees For Veterans Offset By Eliminating Corporate Tax Breaks. In 2006, Obama voted for and McCain voted against the Kerry amendment that would eliminate a tripling of fees for veterans in the TRICARE health care program by raising the discretionary spending limit by approximately $10 billion. The provisions would have been fully offset by eliminating certain corporate tax breaks. [SCR 83, Vote 67, 3/16/06, Failed 46-53, D:43-1, R:2-52, I:1-0]

Obama Voted For And McCain Voted Against Making Veterans’ Health Benefits A Mandatory Spending Program And Avoiding Future Budget Shortfalls. In 2006, Obama voted for and McCain voted against an amendment that would make veterans’ health benefits a mandatory program, spending $104 billion over five years. The funding would have been offset by closing corporate tax loopholes and rolling back the Bush tax cuts for millionaires. [SCR 83, Vote 63, 3/16/06, Failed 46-54, D:43-1, R:2-53, I:1-0]

Obama Voted For And McCain Voted Against Increasing VA Health Care By $1.5 Billion; Amendment Was Paid For By Ending Corporate Tax Breaks. In 2006, Obama voted for and McCain voted against an amendment that increased the discretionary spending limit by $1.5 billion to $874.5 billion to provide an increase in funding for veterans’ medical services. It would be offset by ending certain corporate tax breaks. [Vote 41, SCR 83, 3/14/2006, Failed 46-54: R 1-54; D 44-0; I 1-0]

Obama Voted For And McCain Voted Against An Amendment To Increase Veterans’ Health Care Funding By $2B. In 2005, Obama voted for and McCain voted against increasing funding for the Veterans Affairs Department by $1.98 billion and designate it as emergency spending. It would stipulate that $840 million be used for veterans’ regional health networks; $610 million be used to address the needs of service members deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan; and $525 million be used to provide mental health care and treatment. [Vote 90, HR 1268, Failed: 46-54: R 1-54; D 44-0; I 1-0, 4/12/05; Vote 89, HR 1268, R 1-54, D 44-0, I 1-0, 4/12/05]

Obama Supported And McCain Opposed And Increasing Funding for Veterans Mental Health Services. In 2005, Obama voted for and McCain voted against providing an additional $500 million per year for five years for veterans’ mental health services. The cost of the proposal would have been offset by deferring tax cuts for those making $1 million a year. [S 2020, Vote 343, 11/17/05; Failed 43-55: R 1-53; D 41-2; I 1-0]

Dear Dr. Chopra,

Why do you believe that "Obama's words ring of sincerity, but that's not the key thing: they grow from a much wider basis than one politician's desire to be elected"? It is true that people are hungry for change on many fronts but, how can one man be seen as the answer to all these issues? WORDS ARE EASILY CHOSEN and are generally used to portray specific images and to appeal to the emotions of listeners. POWERFUL WORDS DO NOT ALWAYS INDICATE THAT SUPPORTING ACTIONS WILL FOLLOW THEM.

You say that, "It may be true that he resorts to cliches when speaking of a new world and dignity for every person but, the impulse behind them is shared by millions, not just in this country but around the world." Yes, it is true that HOPE SPRINGS ETERNAL but, it is another thing to recognize that solutions to problems and the implementation of measures to counteract injustices must be approached by many people working together in a spirit of unity and harmonious agreement. I do not feel that our governing politicians have the level of spiritual development needed in order to work together harmoniously for the express purpose of improving the environment, economy and other critical issues of the day.

I don't think pretty words and promises will be enough to bring about the changes so much desired by millions. Actions have always spoken louder than words and always will.

Best Wishes,

"Betsy" S.

Dear Dr. Chopra

This analysis of Obama's popularity was e-mailed to me and was written by a high powered political consultant who wishes to remain aninymous for obvious reasons:

The underlying social change that led to Obama's victory over Clinton is the unprecedented extent to which the narrative of popular consumer culture and the media that drives it, has become the dominant influence on how Americans and the world at large think, formulate their ideas and understand the world around them.

The most important result of this process has been the steady and consistent depoliticization of American society, to an extent that we can make the case that we are living at the dawn of the post political age.

The two primary features of the post political age are a politics completely drained of all its contents and ability or willingness to be used as an agent of change in social or economic policy, and its full integrations into the world of American popular, consumer and entertainment culture. To such an extent that there exists today a seamless web between our political, economic, media and consumer cultures wherein the mosed and values of one are cdompletely integrated and compatible with the others.

It should not come as a surprise that the dominant ideas and mores of popular culture have become the dominant ideas of our society. Popular culture is the breaker of customs, prejudice, tradition and relevant historical knowledge.

It is a result of this dynamic that the two consistent winners in American politics over the last 30 ears have been the cultural left and the economic right. Despite the massive organizing drive of the religious right over the past three deades, they are further away from reversing the cultural liberalization of American society than when they started. On the other side of the ledger, organized labor outside of a few urban pockets and industries is no longer a relevant force in american life. the ever greater electoral activism of both of these groups is generally misunderstood as a show of strength; in fact it is the exact opposite. It is the desperate fight of the losing side of the American economic, cultural and political scene.

In essence the same forces that made it possible for the rapid acceptance of ideas such as gay marriage are the same forces which can create a society that will accept massive social ineqalities.

In the post political world the candiidates who can best thrive in it have tremendous appeal to the economic elites; these candidates thrive in a system that does not dwell on issues and willl never ask the question,"who has power and why?" but simultaneously creates a social and media environment of stupefying distractions while destroying traditional social mores (under-credited as a source of much social solidarity). This can only benefit their continued rule of that society.

In such a setting our political choices like our consumer choices, regardless of the product, are primarily about what makes us more fulfilled and feel better about ourselves.

senator Obama's campaign understood much better the impact of these changes on our electoral system than and of his opponents' campaigns. In the post political world, the campaign that is less political and less issue-based but is savvier in using new modes of communication technology will be the ampaign to win the greatest market share of the electorate. The candidate in this case, Obama, was not a political entity, but, in essence a product, an ornament that made his supporters feel better about themselves.

In commercial advertising it is the poor commercial that lists the seventeen functions of the product being marketed. the best commercials are based on image associations entirely unrelated to the functions of the actual product. In the post political world when the same principle is applied to the political realm, it makes complete sense how Barack Obama no longer is a black man with a strange name but the iPod to Hillary Clinton's cell phone. In the world of toys it is the one that stands out the most is the most marketable.

The reality of the post political period is best highlighted in the failed themes and ideas of Obama's tow primary opponents. the Clinton campaign was based on two concurrent ideas: the inevitability factor of her candidacy and the other her supposed experience. the only thing inevitable is the post political period is ceaseless change, which she could hardly offer while running against the candidate of "Change". How valuable of an asset can experience be to someone where knowledge, wisdom and history are frowned upon?

Given all this as background, what are we to make of the campaign of the candidate of hope audacity and change? The answer lies in understanding Senator Obama's appeal to the brighter sections of the economic and political elite, and more importantly in the lack of any organized opposition against him, of the kind that within a matter of days destroyed Howard Dean's campaign in 2004.

At the precise moment that the intellectual underpinnings of conservative free market ideas that have dominated politics for the past 30 years are crumbling across the globe. Obama calls for post ideological and partisan world.

At the time when the American military industrial complex is despised around the world, he is a front man out of central casting which will buy it more goodwill and new room to manuever in the first 15 minutes after being sworn in than John McCain could in the next 100 years.

His very presence, the color of his skin, the very strangeness of his name is the best guarantee of his betrayal of the expectations of the constituencies that will vote to elect hom. Barack Obama is in short order a far more reassuring prospect for the dontinued dominance of the financial elite than another four years of neo-conservative rule which in an almost historically uniue combination of greed, ill will, incompetence and stupidity have brought the country to the edge of disaster.

Audacity yes, change hardly.

Please excuse all my typos in the above Hit post before previewing. :(

Ref. 18

Here's the full artcile:

Life In the Post Political Age
by Joe Bageant / July 23rd, 2008

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2008/07/life-in-the-post-political-age/

Joe Bageant is author of the book, Deer Hunting With Jesus: Dispatches from America's Class War.

It is also posted at Joe's website on July 24 with the line "By an anonymous political consultant"

www.joebageant.com

Irvine

Thanks for posting that. I didn't have the link.

B

"I don't think pretty words and promises will be enough to bring about the changes so much desired by millions. " 16

"Audacity yes, change hardly." 17

...you obviosly wouldn't know "change" if it hit you in the back of the head.

So you've discovered Obama is a politician, and...
he might not be able to change things as much as we would like. So the alternative is McCain??? Why even post stuff like this?

Peddle this crap somewhere else.

Re. by Anonymous #17 posted by Bonnie

I am not an elite. I live in a midwest small city in a working class neighborhood. Yes, I read a lot and am more in tune with political and history but, I am hardly a prius driving, latte liberal. I also have seen the intellect of the man and anyone who pays attention sees this.
Yes, it is savvy marketing that is helping him win but, an african american man who is a jr. senator, needs all the help he can get.
But, I do argue that part of the article is correct but, a lot of it is not. I know a lot of average, working class people who support Obama.

"Life In the Post Political Age" by an anonymous political consultant (Ref. Irvine, Bonnie) is kind of interesting. I disagree with the idea of Obama's constituency needing a true political leader less. Young people realize we are f--ked in this country. Many of us have multiple degrees and can't find decent jobs with health care. It is getting harder for us to succeed and we know it. Nobody seems to get us.

As for Obama being like a product, yes that's true, but that's politics today. McCain is just as much of a product, which is why he peddles his POW story to whomever will listen. I don't think the elite will benefit more under obama than McCain, unless they are just reaping the benefits we will all have of a cleaner environment and things like health care.

Ref. Article by Anonymous posted by Bageant 17, 19

What incredible crap. I didn't carry Obama's torch during the primaries, and I disagree with much of whatever was the analysis of the primaries that's touted at intentblog, but this is even worse. There's no denying that Obama ran a coherent, effective campaign that succeeded because it BOTH effectively exploited a rather arbitrary primary system AND because he energized and mobilized a lot of new voters who were enthusiastic about him, his ideas, his message, and his 'look and feel'. The two things are not incompatible, and he couldn't have won without both.

In other words, he won the primaries the way that primaries usually are won, not by some novel change in American culture.

As for this despicable statement:

"His very presence, the color of his skin, the very strangeness of his name is the best guarantee of his betrayal of the expectations of the constituencies that will vote to elect him."

It's impossible to read the above as anything but racism of the ugliest variety.

I couldn't agree more Preity.

There is an undertone of bleakness in this "anonymous political consultant" as well as extreme cynicism. I don't think he "gets" Obama. I sense fear that Obama will indeed be a catalyst for the overthrow of the present order into something new and different. He is in denial when he says the last line. He would love to believe that change is not coming but fears that it is.

Re. "Life In the Post Political Age"

I never bought "The End of History" and you'll notice you don't even hear F. Fukuyama flacking for his own doctrine anymore. Politics emptied of meaning and substance may serve the purposes of the corporatist globalizers, but that is a tactical mode for advancing the currently hegemonic ideology, not the end of ideology. In fact it represents the deepening of ideology, an organized effort to implant a particular ideology at a subconscious, subliminal level. That's why my response has been to be much more conscious and conspicuous in my use of ideology, to bring this debate out from in the shadows and under the rugs where the corporatists have the advantage, and force the debates to happen in the clear light of day, to put the struggles of the new era back on the screens from which they have been painstakingly excluded.

Betsy S. asks: 'Dear Dr. Chopra,

Why do you believe that "Obama's words ring of sincerity, but that's not the key thing: they grow from a much wider basis than one politician's desire to be elected"? '

OMG -- Obama wants to be elected?

Holy shit! You're right. Obama would be so much more believable if he was just going around talking about changing the country rather than running for an office where he actually 'could' change the country.

'Cause if he wasn't running for office, we'd know that his words were sincere, even if they amounted to nothing. By giving him the opportunity to fulfill his promises, we also give him the opportunity to break them.

I think we should vote for a candidate who has no promise at all: McCain.

Candidate is a Failed King even before serving.

Look, he's coming back *without a single treaty signed.*

Well said, Freyja.

Does a new start have a chance? Hardly, but it can be offered as a campaign slogan. First of all, no matter who is elected president, the congress will be full of many of the same repeat offenders, always elected due to a plethora of lethargic, indifferent, noncaring electorate. People only seem to care about the big time, such as the President, but never think about who is running for congress, and who has to go along with or go against the agenda of the next president no matter who he may be.

As for the race between Obama and McCain, it is simply one of a great social experiment, to see if all the great liberal media who have promoted antiracial bias over the past forty years has finally brought Americans to the point of readiness for a minority and especially a black candidate. That is the real question: can a black candidate who is qualified but lacking in experience beat a rich white man whose only really credible experience is time serving his country as a pow and then capitalizing on it to spend years as a Senator from a state known for its patriotism.

Either man will fill the bill and live out the dream of big man in the white house if elected. The real question is what will motivate the American people to select one over the other. It will be interesting to see.

It is notable that Bob Barr is running for the office on the Libertarian ticket and was on Countdown tonight. His comments were very pertinent and worthwhile as again he does mean what he says and has objections to some of the recent legislation which even Barack Obama supported, the problem of wiretapping and eavesdropping.

American is in need of a wakeup call. Just because Barack Obama is young, eager, and enthusiastic, and quite brilliant does not mean that he is ready to occupy the seat of the post of President, but it is possible that he can be elected. Don't bet on it yet.

There are other forces at work in this nation besides opinion polls and media working overtime to create impressions for each and everyone.

There is such a thing as respect for seniors, for long hard work, and for keeping America free from unwanted and undesirable objectives such as the too young and too liberal often seem to express.

Naivete at its worse seems to be evident in some of the remarks that Barack Obama does express. And I am especially referring to his attitude about illegal immingration. He and McCain are both a bit on the amnesty side which quite frankly has the worst possible results if brought into practice.

There is no doubt that for each man the goal is a personal one and there is no doubt that Barack Obama would like to believe that if elected he could bring change, but he will still have to work with a Congress that has not yet expressed the need for that kind of change.

I have not decided which candidate so far is worth supporting. I was against the war in Iraq and am still against the war in Iraq. Thumbs up for Obama on that and that is why I supported him for the nomination, but I voted for Ron Paul in the primaries because of his standing up for what is right against his fellow Republicans. It will depend upon how Obama and McCain fare in the debates. McCain sounded good to me the other night in an interview with Sean Hannity in which he said he did not like the families of the candidates to come under criticism as Sean had done to Michelle Obama. I liked him for that. He is a good man who does know how to be coherent when in the right circumstances, but he has become known lately for all his incompetent gaffes. He probably should not be the Republican candidate except as a sacrifice to the Democrats this time round. I figure Obama has a good shot at winning the race.

Wow! 14-30 heavy stuff.

Good job everybody.

Thanks

Hi Sharon #7,

You ask: " What is required to continue to inspire?"

It is a very interesting question and I asked the Google Internet searching bot this very question:

http://www.google.com/search?q=what+is+required+to+continue+to+inspire?

The first three mentioned sites give one already a very broad vision of the past decades and how they came about.

In them you are able to find issues that touch you inside. By reading them, the essence of what is important to you will stay with you and helps you further in your quest.

At least it did with me on how to develop one's vision in life :)

Love, Mieke

Dear Deepak,

I do believe that a new start has a chance.

A real new vision can arise when incorporating the past within oneself. Obama did this and has a good insight. He has written his Blueprint for change that contains a new vision on many aspects of society.

http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/ObamaBlueprintForChange.pdf

When reading it, he continues to inspire. Of course it is the American people themselves that will have to perform this change.

When he is elected president, this blueprint contains the basis of change and the American people are at all time able to remind him of it :)

Freyja...I'm flattered dude! you actually studied my comments, and nailed my personality! Now, we're 'double bound'....a veritable brotherhood!

So....now...if I sign off like this... :( does it mean I'm 'unbound'? That double binder thingy...wow...that's depressing! I've got a lot of work to do to undo the damage...so here goes a start...

hate you anyway...

:(

ps...izzat better??

Deepak's next book....

"The Fourth Jesus!!" Obama's picture on the cover!

It will eventually turn into the new new testament.

It will be an amazing read...The first 4 chapters, instead of Matthew Mark Luke and John, They will be Irvine, Chris, Freyja and John!

The fifth Chapter, won't be the 'acts of the apostles'....it'll be a catalog of strange writings of the IB Obagasm gang! As a parallel to Saul of Tarsus' conversion on the Damascus road, it will detail how Deepak deserted the Hillary Camp, after being blinded by a large light on Route 66....it was there that he recognized the Messiah....

Most of the Chapters will be written by Deepak, as he details his devotion to, and love for his new God. You know....St. Paul style...

Craig, while he's sitting in jail, dreaming of his utopia, will write the last chapter...instead of Revelations, it will be called "Revolution." It will detail far out fantasies of Obama on white horses, sitting on clouds, beheading republicans...and so forth....

Amazon will be delighted!!

:)....oh shit...there went that double bind thingy again...

try again...

:(

Hello Deepak and Everyone,

Does a new start have a chance? Of course, there is always the chance but the real question is have the voters backed the man who can deliver because this man's abilities, knowledge, experience(yes, experience, is important) has shown more than just chance, it has shown the ability to produce results...so, this is really the question, imo. Americans have heard his eloquence. Idealism is a great high and when one can make speeches or write eloquently about their ideal visions it uplifts, for sure, idealism is a great high and Barak Obama and his political strategists have keyed that into their political movement, but what is really needed, today, in America is realism because all of the problems and challenges you have listed have become bare bones issues for millions of Americans who are truly struggling day to day to make ends meet. Without facing our reality, on all fronts, and dealing with the fact that we have allowed certain realities to manifest because of political immaturity on our part, we will never be able to manifest any ideal, we will be stuck with just getting high, listening to or reading someone else's idealist ponderings.....

When I listen to or read all the hype about Barak Obama, because, in reality it is hype, all the man has ever really delivered in his very young career is a couple of best selling books and some "to die for speeches" but in spite of that he is lauded as the great hope by a very immature, confused, and desparte political party, I feel like I have just smoked a joint of idealism, the high is so potent.

Anyway, I do not, in anyway, see all of what you do in Barak Obama but I see enough to know that taking a risk on his complete political inexperience, is, for sure, the lesser of the two risks to take in this coming election.

It is probably good that he is running against John McCain after eight years of living with the "Administration devoted to corruption and deception on all fronts," and, after, eight years of this, now, we have someone who speaks refreshingly, like an actual ADULT, meaning, he can articulate full sentences easily instead of working a whole interview before one comes out, topic appropriate, and, to top it off, he seems to know what day it is, and, actually knows the price of a gallon of gas, in today's market, not the maket of the 80's.

If Barak Obama makes it to the White House I have no doubt he will do his best to deliver whatever he can, realisticaly speaking on then can ideals have any chance at all to manifest for this Nation, I see no great change, but I will be happy for each and every little change that brings this Nation back in line with it's Constitution and Bill of Rights, with the rule of law, so, we can put these past eight years of "lets make a deal, who can undermine the Constitution and the rule of law better than Karl Rove?"...Bush, Cheney, Scooter, Rumsfeld...?

have a great day ruth...

some people do not smoke weed, or take drink of the spirits or do drugs for a high, they do ideaism as a constant diet, yes, it is probably much healthier for one's body mind but used in excess it can create as much unnecessary harm as anyting else....

so be smart go when rolling the "idealism" joints....:)))))

should read

be smart go easy when rolling the "idealism joints!":)))

big inhale, hold it....ahhhhhhhhhhhh, now, what was he saying about Barak Obama :))))

Morning Skinny:)

you write, "It will be an amazing read...The first 4 chapters, instead of Matthew Mark Luke and John, They will be Irvine, Chris, Freyja and John!"

I have come to the conclusion that this entity is directly related to the Obama campaign..I think the Chopras may have given them permission to use IB to help in spreading the message...makes sense..really, that they would want to help their candidate of choice in this way...

I just ignore them...and frankly, they do more to turn me off to Barak Obama than even Deepak's lovesick blogs about Barak and "IDEALISM."

have a great weekend, ruth

Ruth keeps repeating her primary time bs she used to spout about Obama having no experience at all and being politically naive and too idealist etc to keep coping with the loss of her candidate.

I agree though, Deepak's posts on politics may not be keen and carry much meat.

Re. Ruth

Here's an excellent New Yorker artcile from two weeks ago -- the satirical Obama-Terrorist cover was brilliant, but I read the New Yorker for the articles -- which everyone not just ruth should read -- this might shatter some of your illusions about Obama's politics and throw some light on his political pragmatism; while acknowledging how the world is and make progress, as against basing your decisions on how the world should be.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/21/080721fa_fact_lizza

Ryan Lizza's 15,000-word epic by no means paints the most flattering picture of Barack Obama. His Obama is remarkably intelligent and very level-headed, but also understands every lever of power, and is ambitious to the point of being ruthless.

Well, no shit he's ambitious. For any American to go from a relatively unprivileged childhood (or a privileged one for that matter) to be on the doorstep of the Presidency by the time he's age 46 requires a perfect storm of luck, intelligence, and ambition. Obama has ample amounts of each.

But the article is more remarkable for revealing what Obama is not.

One, he's not some Pierre Trudeau type of academic. Obama became interested in politics very early, and seemed to have some keen understanding of his upside potential. The sometimes languid pace of academia was not really compatible with that.

Two, Obama was not corrupt. He knew how to navigate the rules of the system. But he didn't cheat the system. Obama succeeded, for instance, in disqualifying Alice Palmer from the ballot in the Illinois State Senate because she faked hundreds of signatures to get her name on it, and then Obama called her out. That's maybe not the most mannerly, tea-and-crumpets way of doing things. But Obama didn't cheat. Palmer had cheated. What Obama did was to exploit some of the inefficiencies of the Chicago machine system. Tony Rezko donates, though legal channels, a bunch of money because he expects you to behave like a typical machine politician and do him illegal favors? What to do? Well, you take his money. And then you don't do him the favors.

Third, Obama is not any kind of radical, and particularly not any kind of radical black nationalist. His associations with people like Jeremiah Wright and William Ayers may have arisen out of a certain amount of political convenience; they were significant players in the South Side political scene. But there is no evidence that he shared many of their political ideas. Hyde Park is not some liberal enclave in the way that Berkley or Boulder is. It is, rather, a place where people are very tolerant of different ideas. Liberal and even radical ideas, but notably also, conservative ones (where do Leon Kass and John Mearsheimer teach -- and where did Milton Friedman?). Hyde Park prides itself on being a laboratory of free thought and free speech, and so these people can lead a relatively happy coexistence there. But their views do not represent the consensus, and there is certainly no evidence that they represented Obama's.

And moving out of Hyde Park into the South Side community at large, Obama enjoyed relatively chilly relations with many of the district's more predictably left-liberal black politicians. Obama isn't a Black Panther. But Bobby Rush was. Obama tried to primary him out of Congress.

And so while some on the right (and others, less coherently, on the loopy left) will try and excoriate Obama for the political equivalent of not helping old ladies to cross the street, a lot of their favorite narratives about Obama are blown up by this article. Hence, the irony of the cover art. (The right's favorite punchline about the cover seems to be, "all humor has it's basis in reality" [sic]. To which I'd ask: what part has the basis in reality? The terrorist part or the terrorist part?)

That does not mean that the Obama that emerges from Lizza's piece is particularly warm and cuddly. He is certainly a very political creature, and there is something a little steely and postmodern about it all. But it is also not clear that Obama is playing some kind of angle. He seems, rather, to hold a lot of fairly mainstream, somewhat empirically-driven views -- still an idealist in certain ways, but not highly ideological. The White House may represent to him some sort of final step in his self-actualization, but he's not going there to get a blow job, or to play out some sort of Oedipal complex. It's all actually sort of ... boring.

Deepak,

"Upwelling" carries an image of a net/web rising up and coming face to face, closer and closer, with an old net/web. This confrontational tension is an opportunity for each heart/mind/body to make new choices moment by moment. Choices aligned with new paradigm, a word that, for me, carries a net/web image.

The upwelling is greater than any global leader. It's an underground uprising that will carry humanity with it or not. It seems to be coming up from soil and soul of our very own Earth body and Body.

I'd say Obama is riding the wave and inviting us to join him. Some will resonate others will not. Humanity will reap the harvest.

This is a pivotal time to be conscious of seeds sown and the field in which they are sown.

Love to all this summer morning.

Trish~~

Re. 30 Arizonasunset Ref. Bob Barr, Ron Paul, Libertarian

There is a lot of irrationality in the libertarian movement. Fortunately the Paul supporters represent only one segment of libertarianism. I also noted that many libertarians were outraged by the racism expressed in Paul’s writings, while others also disagreed with some of his other conservative views. In other words, not all libertarians are irrational, regardless of whether you disagree with them, despite the impression given by those backing Ron Paul.

There is also a wide amount of variation in views among libertarians, with some libertarians even supporting Barack Obama. A recent Rasmussen poll showed that libertarians preferred Obama over McCain by a margin of 53% to 38%. Of course many libertarians, even regardless of whether they prefer Obama or McCain, will wind up voting for Bob Barr, who has acted, early this month, to repudiate the racists who backed Ron Paul.

Bob Barr might be seeking much of the support which Ron Paul received during the primaries, but at least he knows where to draw the line. While Ron Paul received considerable criticism, including from libertarians, for his associations with right wing extremists, Barr most likely realizes associating with the extreme right will prevent his campaign from being taken seriously. Reason Magazine notes that, ” One of the bigger media blunders the Ron Paul campaign made was its handling of endorsements from the bigots at Stormfront” and that, “White nationalists slithered around the fringes of the Paul movement.”

http://www.reason.com/blog/show/126790.html

When Paul was criticized for his association with white supremacists his more fanatic supporters often claimed that this was “guilt by association” and sometimes rationalized this by arguing that support for Paul was a justified exercise of their rights by extremist groups. Barr demonstrates that a candidate can control who they are associated with, and that such endorsements can be repudiated without violating anyone’s right to freedom of expression.

Many prominent voices from both libertarians and conservatives show support for Obama. Earlier this month the San Francisco Chronicle looked at libertarian support for Obama:
__________________________________________________
“I do know libertarians who think Obama is the Antichrist, that he’s farther left than John Kerry, much farther left than Bill Clinton, and you’d clearly have to be insane to vote for this guy,” said David Boaz, executive vice president of the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank. “But there are libertarians who say, ‘Oh yeah? Do you think Obama will increase spending by $1 trillion, because that’s what Republicans did over the past two presidential terms. So really, how much worse can he be?’ And there are certainly libertarians who think Obama will be better on the war and on foreign policy, on executive power and on surveillance than McCain.”

Libertarians are tired of Christian evangelicals, who they believe captured the GOP under President Bush. Evangelicals, for their part, are skeptical of McCain, who in 2000 called Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson “agents of intolerance.” McCain has tried to make amends, promising to stand firm on abortion and same-sex marriage, and appoint conservative Supreme Court justices, but mistrust runs deep.

Douglas Kmiec is former chief of the Office of Legal Counsel in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations, and now a constitutional law professor at Pepperdine University and a devout Catholic. Kmiec endorsed Obama earlier this year, despite his conviction that Obama “believes in a pretty progressive agenda.”

Kmiec said his support deepened after meeting with Obama and other faith leaders last month, during which the busy candidate spent 2 1/2 in a freewheeling discussion with people who differed with him.

“I think he’s the right person at the right time to re-establish principles of constitutional governance that have been ill treated by the current administration, and to free us from the tar paper that we know is Iraq,” Kmiec said, adding that many Republicans privately agree. “I think he’s a man in the market for every good idea he can find, and he doesn’t care what label it comes with.”

David Friedman, the son of late conservative icon and Nobel economist Milton Friedman, has also endorsed Obama. Calling McCain a “nationalist,” Friedman, an economist at Santa Clara University, thinks Obama could turn out like the liberals who deregulated New Zealand’s economy.

“Of the two, Obama is less bad and at least has a chance in some ways of being good,” said Friedman. Friedman likes Obama’s University of Chicago advisers such as Austan Goolsbee and Cass Sunstein, who he believes are trying to forge a new leftism that incorporates free-market views. “I don’t expect to agree in general with them,” Friedman said, “but I certainly would be happy if the left became more libertarian, since the right seems to be less libertarian than it used to be.”

Many see the Iraq war as hostile to conservative values and as a “friend of the state” - something that inherently expands the reach of the government, as Milton Friedman once described war.

“People don’t understand that there has always been a small but very significant element of conservatives who have been against the war from day one and who, like me, also hate George Bush and think he’s the most incompetent president in American history,” said Bruce Bartlett, a supply-side economist who coined the term Obamacons. “The few people who are slavishly pro-Republican, live or die, slavishly pro-Bush like the Weekly Standard crowd, have gotten lot more publicity than they deserve.”
www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/07/06/MN3T11JI0P.DTL
_________________________________________________
Of course, as the artcile notes, not surprisingly, not all libertarians go along with supporting Obama.

Bruce Bartlett has also written on this topic in an article at The New Republic:

----------------------------------------------------
The largest group of Obamacons hail from the libertarian wing of the movement. And it’s not just Andrew Sullivan. Milton and Rose Friedman’s son, David, is signed up with the cause on the grounds that he sees Obama as the better vessel for his father’s cause. Friedman is convinced of Obama’s sympathy for school vouchers–a tendency that the Democratic primaries temporarily suppressed. Scott Flanders, the CEO of Freedom Communications–the company that owns The Orange County Register–told a company meeting that he believes Obama will accomplish the paramount libertarian goals of withdrawing from Iraq and scaling back the Patriot Act.

Libertarians (and other varieties of Obamacons, for that matter) frequently find themselves attracted to Obama on stylistic grounds. That is, they believe that he has surrounded himself with pragmatists, some of whom (significantly) come from the University of Chicago. As the blogger Megan McArdle has written, “His goal is not more government so that we can all be caught up in some giant, expressive exercise of collectively enforcing our collective will on all the other people standing around us in the collective; his goal is improving transparency and minimizing government intrusion while rectifying specific outcomes.”
www.tnr.com/story_print.html?id=46a816dc-f843-41ec-9fe4-fbeac17bcfca
----------------------------------------------------

Re. Arizona, Libertarian

Many are unaware of the libertarian aspects of Barack Obama’s views and on libertarians who are supporting Obama. By libertarians here I don’t mean the Republicans who have adopted the libertarian label because it sounds cooler, and especially not the more fanatic and unhinged Paul supporters who haven’t a clue as to what libertarianism is really about. I mean libertarians who think and are aware of the great heritage of pro-freedom philosophers and writers who were libertarians before the label included everyone from supporters of social conservatism to even some supporters of the Iraq war.

[Gotham Chopra is the only self proclaimed libertarian I have come across at Intentblog, who incidentally supports Obama.]

With this criteria in mind, I should not have been at all surprised to see that David Friedman prefers Obama over both Hillary Clinton and John McCain. Besides, if anyone understands the significance of the influence of economists from the University of Chicago on Obama it would be the son of Milton Friedman.

David Friedman answered questions about why he prefers Obama to McCain

daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/2008/05/thoughts-on-obama.html

Both Megan McArdle and David Friedman prefer Obama over McCain. In The Los Angeles Times, Megan wrote:
________________________

"Obama is the right man for his party, and McCain is the wrong one. Obama is not only personally inspiring, but he also seems to have a deep understanding of the value of markets and transparency; he aims to fix outcomes, not tinker with the process. McCain, on the other hand, shows little respect for spontaneous free order or suspicion of expanded state power; he seems to think that the main problem with the government is that the wrong people are pulling the strings."

www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-klein-mcardle9-2008jun09,0,210594.story
______________________

For those who are interested in reading more on some of the items mentioned by Friedman, Cass Sunstein has posted his observations at The New Republic. Here’s a portion which which explains Obama’s views, primarily on economic matters. This gives some clues as to how libertarian ideas have influenced his views:

__________________________________________________
"He is strongly committed to helping the disadvantaged, but his University of Chicago background shows. He appreciates the virtues and power of free markets. In some of his most important disagreements with Senator Clinton, he suggested caution about mandates and bans, and stressed the value of freedom of choice.

Transparency and accountability matter greatly to him; they are a defining feature of his proposals. With respect to the mortgage crisis, credit cards, and the broader debate over credit markets, Obama rejects heavy-handed regulation and insists above all on disclosure, so that consumers will know exactly what they are getting.

Expect transparency to be a central theme in any Obama administration, as a check on government and the private sector alike. It is highly revealing that Obama worked with Republican Tom Coburn to produce legislation creating a publicly searchable database of all federal spending.

Obama’s healthcare plan places a premium on cutting costs and on making care affordable, without requiring adults to purchase health insurance. (He would require mandatory coverage only for children.) Republican legislators are unlikely to support a mandatory approach, and his plan can be understood, in part, as a recognition of political realities.

But it is also a reflection of his keen interest in allowing people to choose as they see fit. He seeks universal coverage not through unenforceable mandates but through giving people good options.

It should not be surprising that in terms of helping low-income workers, Obama has long been enthusiastic about the Earned Income Tax Credit–an approach, pioneered by Republicans, that supplements wages but does not threaten to throw people out of work. In the environmental domain, Obama is a strong supporter of incentive-based programs, not of command-and-control. Here too, he draws on ideas that have been pressed most prominently by Republicans (and he gives them credit for their initiative in this domain).

But Obama is no a compromiser; he does not try to steer between the poles (or the polls). “Triangulation” has no appeal for him. Both internationally and domestically, he is willing to think big and to be bold. As everyone knows, he publicly opposed the war in Iraq at a time when opposition was exceedingly unpopular. (In his speech opposing the war, by the way, he went out of his way to emphasize, before a largely pacifist audience, that he does not oppose all wars: “After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this Administration’s pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such a tragedy from happening again.”)

As everyone also knows, Obama favors high-level meetings with some of the world’s worst dictators. He would rethink the embargo against Cuba.

He proposes a $150 billion research budget for climate change. He wants to hold an unprecedented national auction for the right to emit greenhouse gases. (This is an idea, by the way, that has large support among economists and that can be traced to an essay by Ronald Coase on communications policy.) He has offered an ambitious plan for promoting technological innovation, calling for a national broadband policy, embracing network neutrality, and proposing a reform of the patent system.

His campaign has spoken of moving toward “iPod Government”–an effort to rethink public services and national regulations in ways that will make things far simpler and more user-friendly. These are points about policies and substance. As president, Obama would set a new tone in US politics. He refuses to demonize his political opponents; deep in his heart, I believe, he doesn’t even think of them as opponents. It would not be surprising to find Republicans and independents prominent in his administration. Obama wants to know what ideas are likely to work, not whether a Democrat or a Republican is responsible for them. Recall the most memorable passage from his keynote address at the 2004 Democratic Convention: “We coach Little League [baseball] in the blue [Democratic-voting] states, and, yes, we’ve got some gay friends in the red states. There are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq, and there are patriots who supported the war in Iraq.”"

http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/open_university/archive/2008/06/12/obama-the-university-of-chicago-democrat.aspx
__________________________________________________

Barack Obama is not a libertarian, but others have found libertarian aspects of his views which could explain why many libertarians back him. Back in January Daniel Koffler was the one who labeled Obama a left-libertarian. After a lengthier discussion of his thoughts on Obama’s views, he concluded:

-------------------------------------------------
"In other words and in short, Obama’s slogan, “stand for change”, is not a vacuous message of uplift, but a content-laden token of dissent from the old-style liberal orthodoxy on which Clinton and Edwards have been campaigning. At the same time, Obama is not offering a retread of (Bill) Clintonism, Liebermanism, triangulation, neoliberalism, the Third Way or whatever we might wish to call the business-friendly centrism of the 1990s. For all its lofty talk of new paradigms and boundary shifting, the Third Way in practice amounted to taking a little of column A, a little of column B, and marketing the result as something new and innovative. Obama and Goolsbee propose something entirely different - not a triangulation, but a basis for crafting public policy orthogonal to the traditional liberal-conservative axis.

If this approach needs a name, call it left-libertarianism. Advancements in behavioural economics, public and rational choice theory, and game theory provide us with an opportunity to attend to inequality without crippling the economy, enhancing the coercive power of the state, or infringing on personal liberty (at least not to any extent greater than the welfare state already does; and as much as my libertarian friends might wish otherwise, the welfare state isn’t going anywhere). The cost - higher marginal tax rates - is real, but eminently justified by the benefits.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jan/09/substancenotstyle
--------------------------------------------------

Just as there are many different types of libertarians, there is no single definition for left-libertarianism. This does provide a clear distinction between the types of libertarians who back Obama and those whose views are closer to Ron Paul.

Marcus Westbury, writing in The Sydney Morning Herald, wrote about the growth of left-libertarianism and the adoption of such views by many progressives:

__________________________________________________
"When did left-leaning libertarianism become the significant and perhaps even dominant ideology among progressives?

A generation or two ago the dominant left-wing ideology was decidedly authoritarian socialism. But only right-wing commentators and museum-piece communists seriously think anyone really believes in socialist-style central planning any more. So who, exactly, are these libertarian lefties? The best I can offer is anecdotal observations mixed with tenuous extrapolations about how they may differ from the socialist left and the libertarian right.

They value diversity. They recognise it both as an innate right and a precondition to innovation. They are committed to social justice but less inclined than their socialist forebears to achieve it by trying to make all things constrictively equal.

They’re sceptical of highly centralised, bureaucratic and inefficient structures. However, most of them see that up close in the corporate sector rather than as the exclusive problem of government.

They believe in freedom but do not see free markets and freedom as entirely the same. They tend to think governments must play an active role in ensuring freedom is protected from unscrupulous employers or predatory companies, reflected in the choices and opportunities we have in our personal lives, or reflected in the diversity of media available.

They tend to regard choice and competition as generally good and cannot imagine price controls or state-run industries. But they know that the market often fails, and they don’t trust it alone to tackle issues like climate change or health care. They see market power as just as likely an impediment to freedom as governments.

They are sceptical of over-regulation, believing regulation should be proportional to power and influence, and not the other way around. They question why the deregulation of economics has concentrated on the powerful, while nanny-state regulation, politicised micro-management and national security has made life more complex for the poor and the powerless.

Most of all they tend to be both idealistic and pragmatic and unable to accept that we should not try to achieve more."

www.smh.com.au
__________________________________________________

Others have also argued that left-libertarianism is very similar to contemporary liberalism, which makes an overlap in support for Obama between both libertarians and liberals understandable. Such liberal and libertarian fusionism, or liberaltarianism, has been a common topic of discussion in both liberal and libertarian circles.

I just watched Barack's speech to Berlin.

He engages the entire world. He speaks basic truths that anyone with ears can hear. And many people have ears in the world today. I cried for the better part of the last half of his speech. Tears of joy for the sound of so many voices coming together in harmony.

We can be one. We already are one. Barack Obama knows this truth. And he can stand in front of over 200,000 people on "foreign" soil, speak from his heart, his mind and his soul about the state of our world and what we need to be, and touch that place of truth in each person listening.

Who among us here can do that?

And as I listened and watched, I cried tears for all of you frightened souls and cynics, one and the same, who don't believe we can be one, we are one.

It's only a matter of time before all of us here, the believers and the non, come to know the truth.

Freyja, (#40 Re. ruth, New Yoker artcile) was an excellent post. And thanks for educating on libertarian views. Bob Barr's comment criticizing Obama for the retroactive immunity to telecoms part of the FISA, as mentioned by Arizonasuset, was something he was deeply criticized by the liberals too for not keeping his promise to filibuster the bill. But, he has promised to revisit the Bill as a President, it was a judgment call by Obama on the need for the surveillance tools in place before something can be done about the immunity.

As per Arizonsunset saying Obama sounds "naive" on the immigration issue, its quiet revealing the ignorance of issues and his stances. That's what you get your news from Fox and Hannity. When McCain was for immigration reform(for so many years before he ran for president, and now backed up on some issues he enthusiastically backed then) he was not "naive" because he has "experience" and Obama is supposedly "inexperienced." All democrats and several Republicans, except Ron Paul and many extreme right wingers who play on xenophobia, are for Comprehensive Immigration Reform.

Not everyone is ignorant about Senate and House races and the issues and a candidates stances like you might be.

Oh, and the fellow Ron Paulite "Betsy" S. wondering how one man can change so much...thing is a President can ..do a lot, Bush/Cheney who screwed up this country are testimony to the power of a President. If Obama has the conducive Senate and House then surely a lot of reform legislation can be passed. The democrats are in search of the Holy grail of filibusterer proof 60 Senate seats. Which is actually more powerful than winning the presidency. Obama has a 50 state strategy and have campaign offices in red states like Texas, Alaska, North Dakota, Georgia etc, which was unheard of before for exactly this purpose; to help the down ballot tickets. Obama is already seeing past on just winning the presidency.

Yes, there are many Bush dog democrats in conservative districts, but in the annals of netroots progressive activism, the idea is to get "MORE and BETTER Democrats" (in that order.)

That's how you pass crucial laws on universal health care, war and environment without the constant filibusters and veto from a president like the current one who so often does to the detriment of progress at the expense of continuing his failed policies.

O yes, the rider of the white horse,
be he the Antichrist or the Messiah,
or perhaps the Spirit of humankind unified;
Conquering poverty and war!

Smoking idealist joints
mixed with a little green herb
. . . (cough cough cough) . . .
I couldn’t hold it my lungs were about to burst!

Now I see those headless republicans
through the billowing smoke,
they are waving around a Constitution signed by God,
we just need them to hit this apocalyptic dope,

to see that our brotherhood is the real Constitution!

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,
have too long been construed
to mean simply that we are freed
to economically get the better of you.

Is this what God would do?

. . . (cough cough cough) . . .

No. I see people building large villages around schools,
I see high-rise buildings crumbling down from disuse,
I see technocrats figuring out how production, transportation,
and consumption is administered without money:

technocrats who are us and not a government.

I see every child in every land,
going to school until a trade or purpose they have found.
I see children growing up with the primal notion of sharing
and themselves thinking what an odd notion

to hold against another some thing I may call a possession.

I see the U.S. military transformed into the world’s largest
method of transportation
without a weapon on ship or in hand.
Cooperation Incorporated with a membership of six billion.

I see the Promised Land.

. . . (cough cough cough) . . .

I see . . . .

A white horse with a bodiless rider carrying a white flag
unadorned with insignia or coat of arms:
Unadorned.
One possesses nothing after all.

Strange.

I see . . . .

Amen

Oops:

"Cooperation Incorporated with a membership of SEVEN billion"

Yeah, like that number 7!

peace

Wow... I almost never read whole threads if they are long, but the discussion here has kept my attention. It has remained remarkably free of name-calling and other juvenile tactics.

I especially enjoyed posts 11,14,17, and 45. There's a lot of actual information in there and I have to say, resonates with my viewpoint. The summary of the new liberalism in post 45 kind of strikes a chord too.

Obama seems very, very smart. Contrary to to those who say he is inexperienced or idealistric, I think he has shown great savvy, and that he does, in fact study in depth the issues, and studies closely who his opponents will be, as well as calculating how to either neutralize his political opposition with counter moves, or bring people who would oppose him into his tent.

In my opinion, Obama is playing to win. He wants to be president, and he wants to accomplish certain things as President. I have to admit, I am not quite sure what those certain things are, because now he is playing to win, and saying and doing whatever is necessary to win.

My view is that he is a centrist, not a leftie. I think that is really why Americans will, I believe , elect him. Americans may be ready for a black or a woman president, but they are not ready for a one who appears too liberal, and Obama knows that.

He also knows he has to bring the pro-Israel lobby into his tent, and he has to somehow get the media to portray him in a positive light.

He knew if he voted against telecom immunity, the result would be that the huige media comglomerates would blacklist him, censor him out as much as possible, and slander him whenever they did feature him.

Witness the fate of John Edwards, a candidate who unambiguously stated his intentions to change things in Washington, a candidate that usually won the debates he was in. He was simply censored out of the media to a large degree.

And you won't see Kucinich, Dean, or Ron Paul being able to mount effective campaigns because the "L" word is too easily slapped on them (doesn't matter if "L" stands for liberal or libertarian, Americans are not going to elect either one President).

Ralph Nader doesn't stand a chance for the simple reason that he stands for too much change.

Americans would like to see improvement in the economy, and regardless of the right-wing lurch we have seen in the past quarter century, Americans still want their free speech, their privacy, and the ability to follow *whatever* spirituality they choose for themselves, even if it is none.

And the election is not going to be driven by 'values voters' or the so-called 'family values' faction. Americans, by and large, simply don't think gay marriage and abortion are at the top of the list of issues this country has to deal with right now.

I have had many discussions of this type with my brother, who is as right-leaning as I am left, but we agree on this: we don't really care what gay people do in terms of their relationships, and we prefer that it not eat up a lot of time on news shows. That said, it's their choice. In our case, at least, the rightie and the leftie agree on that. I'm saying that because, as far as I can tell, that's a very mainstream view on that issue right now, and shows that those kinds of issues are not what is driving voters this year.

Obama is running the smarter campaign. He is consistently drawing bigger crowds, and he is raising more money.

The MSM is still trying to slant things against Obama. I read NYT headlines like this"Change Germans can't believe in", but when I read the European press, it's clear that the Germans DO believe in Obama. He's exactly what they want to see in leadership coming from the US. It was a lovefest in Berlin, and any "news" that tries to slant it otherwise is simply propaganda.

But the media is split on Obama, again, because he is playiong all his assets to his advantage. He has made it clear that he is not against the huge media conglomerates when it it comes to their profits, their mergers, etc. He is savvy enough to keep his hands off their money. That erases a lot of potential bias against him. Sure, FOX News is locked down into GOP propaganda, but they have been reduced to trying to spread the meme that Obama is a Muslim terrorist, and are still trying to get mileage out of the cheap trick of having their commentators "slip up" and say "Osama, oops, I meant Obama".

The trouble is, Americans aren't buying that mem anymore and they aren't fooled by the 'slip up" trick. Americansare seeking actual real information, in a time in history when they are able to get real information more easily than ever before. FOX could hypnotize the public if this was the 1940s and they were the only viable big players in news, but they aren't, so they can't.

I also have seen where MSNBC is trying to push the old "Obama is a Democrat and Democrats want to raise taxes, and McCain is a Republican and Republicans want to lower taxes" rhetoric, but today's voting American knows that there's more to it than that, so I think that isn't working on people anymore either. This largely due to the fact that Americans have seen that the GOP is not actually the party of fiscal responsibility, a meme they used to be able to play to great adavantage.

Obama's true motives, other than his pure ambition to be President, are not real clear to me.

My guess is that he is a centrist, and that what he really wants is to bring America back towards centrist politics, and try to restore some power to our economy in the process (if that is possible).

I'll support him because he is, in my opinion, better than the alternative, and because, at my age, my idealism to change the world completely has mellowed out into supporting incremental improvements when i see the opportunity to do that.

With Obama I am not fooled by the 'hope for change" advertising, but I do see opportunity for incremental improvement.

Hello Mieke, (#32 what is required to continue to inspire)

Thank you so much. I am looking forward to reading these websites. I'll let you know what I think.

Much love to you, sweet heart :) Hope you are having a lovely day.
Sharon

Fie upon thee evangelical pragmatists!

Damn MSM's fashioning thinking with fashionable thinking thinking fascist fashion unseen. Fashioning corporate faith in conglomerates: humanity's bane! Some see MSM’s game.

Fie!

Destroy cluttering illusions!

arrr

Dear Bonnie,

Thank you very much for your Posting No. 17 and your reference to the Article by Joe Bageant. It was interesting how he compared the selling of commercial products to that of selling political candidates. This is an era of focus on promised benefits of questionable products. The words that I found especially insightful were:

"In the post political world the candidates who can best thrive in it have tremendous appeal to the economic elites; THESE CANDIDATES THRIVE IN A SYSTEM THAT DOES NOT DWELL ON ISSUES and will never ask the question, 'who has power and why?' BUT SIMULTANEOUSLY CREATES A SOCIAL AND MEDIA ENVIRONMENT OF STUPEFYING DISTRACTIONS WHILE DESTROYING TRADITIONAL SOCIAL MORES (under-credited as a source of much social solidarity). THIS CAN ONLY BENEFIT THEIR CONTINUED RULE OF THAT SOCIETY.

BARACK OBAMA IS in short order A FAR MORE REASSURING PROSPECT FOR THE CONTINUED DOMINANCE OF THE FINANCIAL ELITE than another four years of neo-conservative rule which in an almost historically unique combination of greed, ill will, incompetence and stupidity have brought the country to the edge of disaster.

Our country is at the edge of disaster and is experiencing the dissolution of its social mores (the source of social solidarity). People have been purposely distracted from the serious issues confronting our society by the political and economic elite who will never allow the question, "Who has power and why?" to be addressed.

Best Wishes,

"Betsy" S.

lol :D in agreement (Pirate Craig)

Mieke,
When I pasted your link:
http://www.google.com/search?q=what+is+required+to+continue+to+inspire
I got a different but interesting result for the 1st 3 websites.

JK Galbraith - "the best known living economist" whose ideas continue to inspire. He died at age 97 a couple of years ago.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20060501/ai_n16216364

Shahid Bhagat Singh - a young Hindustan Republican Socialist, who was martyred 70 some years ago, still inspires the youth of India to let go of a stagnant system.
http://soilride.wordpress.com/2007/09/27/the-life-and-struggle-of-shahid-bhagat-singh-continue-to-inspire-our-youth/

Rumi - a poet whose words continue to inspire 700 something years after he lived.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14775838

Cool, huh.
I know Dr. Chopra loves Rumi. And he shows up as one of the top 3 in a google search "what is required to continue to inspire?", as well as an Indian martyr.

Thanks Mieke :)
Love,
Sharon

Yogi-one,

I think you will like David Sirota's work.

Check him out:

David J. Sirota (born 1975) is an American political figure and commentator. He is a two-time New York Times betselling author, nationally-syndicated newspaper columnist and blogger generally considered to hold progressive anti-establishment views.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Sirota

***

His latest book "The Uprising: An Unauthorized Tour of the Populist Revolt Scaring Wall Street and Washington (Hardcover)" is currently on the New York Times' Best Seller List.

***

His blogs can be found here:

http://www.openleft.com/userDiary.do?personId=1146

***

Here's a sample post which is very relevant to the discussion of Deepak's post:

Making the Wind Blow In the Progressive Direction
by: David Sirota
Tue Jul 22, 2008

NEW ORLEANS - CNN today today published a long piece on its website about what an Obama presidency would mean for the African American community. The article fronts an absurd title asking whether an Obama presidency would "hurt black Americans." I'd say there's very little chance of that. However, I do believe the amount that Obama moves the country forward on all issues is contingent on how much we pressure him. To that end, here's my quote in the piece:

__________________________________________________
"He's like any politician. He's cautious," Sirota said. "He's a potential vehicle for change, and I think he is a good vehicle, but he is just a vehicle."

His presidency may represent fundamental change, but that doesn't mean he will initiate such sweeping changes if he's elected.

"Politicians, even the best-intentioned ones, are weather vanes," Sirota said. "If the wind isn't blowing in the right direction, they will perpetuate the status quo."

It will take more than a presidential candidate to change the status quo; it'll take a movement, Sirota says.

"My concern is that people will think that by simply electing Obama, change will come, whether it's on race or economic justice issues," he said.

"If people believe that, then real change will not happen."
__________________________________________________

Movement psychology - the kind that is going to take the populist uprising and turn it into a movement - requires us to focus on making that wind blow in our direction before the election and after. If we can do that - and I think we can - we're going to see the kind of change we are all hoping for.

Re. Yogi-one,

Also there is an inherent problem with the idea of "center" and "centrism" in a changing political landscaspe. Many liberals or progressives think that the liberal/progressive views are becoming mainstream. Yeah there is a difference between the two as explained by Sirota in a 2005 artcile, where he gives an example of Baarck Obama then, which can can be found here:

What's the Difference Between a Liberal and a Progressive?
Posted October 19, 2005
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/whats-the-difference-bet_b_9140.html

The point is Sirota writes (two weeks ago,) "For the last few weeks, every reporter, politician and pundit in Washington have been saying Obama's endorsement of warrantless wiretapping and shifting statements on NAFTA and Iraq are moves to the center.* But, as my column shows, the empirical public opinion data show that those are moves away from the center of American public opinion.

This is the invisible propaganda system I'm talking about - the one that tries to impose the skewed center of elite opinion in Washington, D.C. on the rest of the country - even though the center of opinion in the rest of the country is far different from that Washington "center." And if you think this distortion is inadvertent, then I've got some real estate to sell you. As the column shows, there's a very clear reason why those in D.C. want to distort the center.

You can read the full column at the San Francsico Chronicle, Denver Post, Ft. Collins Coloradoan, In These Times, TruthDig, Credo Action or Creators Syndicate's website.

...* Obama has said he has not shifted position on NAFTA and Iraq - and that he's been entirely consistent. Whether that's true or not is not important in the context of looking at how the media and politicians try to skew the terms of our political debate. The point here is that the Establishment portrays positions supporting warrantless wiretapping, NAFTA and staying in Iraq as "centrism" when the empirical data shows such positions are on the extreme fringe of American public opinion."

Full entry here
http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=7013

Also, from his Wiki page:

Political views

"Sirota is a fierce critic of what he considers to be neoliberal policies, and has leveled frequent criticism at both the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations.

He has strongly criticized the Democratic Leadership Council and other Democrats, whom he claims have sold out to corporate interests, and has argued that the term "centrist" is a misnomer in that these politicians are out of touch with public opinion. Sirota's article "The Democrats' Da Vinci Code" argues that progressive politicians are more successful in so-called "red states" than the mainstream media have previously reported.[6]

He is an opponent of laissez faire free trade policies, a supporter of fair trade, and an advocate for workers' rights and organized labor."

The Uprising: An Unauthorized Tour of the Populist Revolt Scaring Wall Street and Washington (Hardcover)
by David Sirota (Author)

Reviews

"Sirota reports cleverly and in pleasing detail about a complex world of political conflict"
—Washington Post

"Sirota (Hostile Takeover ) chronicles how ordinary citizens on the right and the left are marshaling their frustrations with the government into uprisings across the country and analyzes the effectiveness and longevity of their efforts. Citing developments as disparate as progressive political victories in the Montana state senate and the rise of the California Minutemen militia, the author weaves entertaining case studies, keeping his tone conversational, the narrative fast-paced and the content accessible. Sirota hits numerous high notes, including a fine elucidation of continuing Democratic support for the Iraq War, a breakdown of the "echo chamber" qualities of beltway television shows like Hardball and salient observations of how and why the Democratic Party severed ties with the liberal uprising of the '60s era. According to Sirota, "The activism and energy frothing today is disconnected and atomized. The only commonality between it all is rage." It remains to be seen whether this rage will snowball into something large enough to upset entrenched political systems, but for the time being, this book presents a rousing account of the local uprisings already in effect."
—Publishers Weekly

"After so many decades of fake populism--of revolts by the wealthy, red-state fantasies, and stock-picking grandmas--could we finally be looking at the real thing? In this compelling book, rooted in history but as contemporary as this morning's newspaper, David Sirota gives us reason to hope."
—Thomas Frank, author of What's the Matter with Kansas? and The Wrecking Crew

"David Sirota is honest, uncompromising, passionate, and a brilliant communicator. He is the most important progressive voice we have in this country. The Uprising should be read by anyone who wants to understand exactly how the ordinary person has been sold out by the political system."
—Matt Taibbi, national political correspondent for Rolling Stone and author of The Great Derangement

"This book engages in the nearly lost art of reporting to tell us what's going on in the many places that the elite media can't be bothered to look. It chronicles just how fed up Americans have become, and nominates a few heroes for them to turn to: that great senator Bernie Sanders, or the activist nun Pat Daly, for instance. It cheered me a good deal to read how many Americans are finally starting to fight back against the rule of greed that has been our lot for too many years."
—Bill McKibben, author of Deep Economy and The Bill McKibben Reader

"With a historian’s and a journalist’s storytelling gifts, David Sirota describes the populist tide that so many elites fear and ignore at all our peril: multinational corporations that rip off local communities as if they were resource colonies, a national security state that manipulates our young to bleed for that same empire, and a political elite more concerned with preserving its power than empowering citizens to become self-governing. Since leaving the Beltway behind, David Sirota has become a must-read chronicler in the populist tradition."
—Tom Hayden, author of The Tom Hayden Reader and Ending the War in Iraq

"David Sirota details with clarity the sharp knife of corporate greed pointed at the throat of our democracy--and the populist uprising that may thwart the threat if enough Americans heed his call. If you love your country, buy The Uprising, read it, and act."
—Joe Trippi, chief presidential campaign strategist for Howard Dean and John Edwards and author of The Revolution Will Not Be Televised

"David Sirota is a clear-headed and principled hell-raiser for economic justice. More like him and we'll have a real uprising on our hands. "
—Naomi Klein, author of No Logo and The Shock Doctrine

Product Description
An All-Access Pass to the Populist
Insurrection Brewing Across the Country

Job outsourcing. Perpetual busy signals at government agencies. Slashed paychecks. Stolen elections. A war without end, fatally mismanaged. Ordinary Americans on both the Right and Left are tired of being disenfranchised by corrupt politicians of both parties and are organizing to change the status quo. In his invigorating new book, David Sirota investigates whether this uprising can be transformed into a unified, lasting political movement.

Throughout the course of American history, uprisings like the one we are seeing now have given birth to powerful movements to end wars, protect workers, and expand civil rights, so the prospect of today’s uprising turning into a full-fledged populist movement terrifies Wall Street and Washington. In The Uprising, Sirota takes us far from the national media spotlight into the trenches where real change is happening—from the headquarters of the most powerful third party in America to the bowels of the U.S. Senate; from the auditorium of an ExxonMobil shareholder meeting to the quasi-military staging area of a vigilante force on the Mexican border. This is vital, on-the-ground reporting that immerses us in the tumultuous give-and-take of politics at its most personal.

Sirota also offers a biting critique of our politics. He shows how the uprising is, at its core, a reaction to faux “bipartisanship” in the nation’s capital—the “bipartisanship” whereby Republican and Democratic lawmakers join together in putting the agenda of corporate interests above all those of ordinary citizens.

Ultimately, Sirota reminds us that the Declaration of Independence, “America’s original uprising manifesto,” says that governments “derive their powers from the consent of the governed.” Irreverent and insightful, The Uprising shows how the governed have stopped consenting and have started taking action.

About the Author
DAVID SIROTA is a political organizer and nationally syndicated newspaper columnist who has worked in state and national politics all over America. His first book, Hostile Takeover (2006), was a New York Times bestseller, and his column runs weekly in the Denver Post, San Francisco Chronicle, and Seattle Times, as well as in other newspapers. Sirota blogs at credoaction.com/sirota. He is a senior fellow at the Campaign for America's Future and the founder of the Progressive States Network—both nonpartisan research institutions. He lives in Denver, Colorado, with his wife, Emily, and their dog, Monty.

Visit DavidSirota.com

I hope this is also the mainstream intentblog's view:

Learning That Politicians Aren't Messiahs
by: David Sirota
Sun Jul 13, 2008

'This is an ongoing series from the national tour for THE UPRISING.'

CHICAGO - The New York Times writes today on Barack Obama's recent policy shifts. The headline (not surprisingly) distorts the frame of debate, calling the Illinois senator's critics the "far left." I'll be writing on why that is such a distortion in my upcoming newspaper column this week. But beyond that distortion, let's consider the substance of what's going on. Here's my take, as quoted in the article:

"I'm not saying we're there yet, but that's the danger," said David Sirota, a liberal political analyst and author. "I don't think there's disillusion. I think there's an education process that takes place, and that's a good thing. He is a transformative politician, but he is still a politician."

This follows a lot of the underlying message of my book, THE UPRISING: namely, that politicians - whether Obama or others - are not messiahs, but mere vehicles for the change we do - or do not - force them to embrace. If Obama's moves force more poeple to learn that truism, then I think that's a positive silver lining to his disappointing shifts.

Jeralyn Merritt over at TalkLeft says I'm wrong - that Obama isn't a transformative politician. What do you think? Do you think what I told the Times was right, and that Obama is transformative, but that his moves potentially undermine his brand? Or do you think I'm wrong, that Obama isn't really transformative, and that his moves prove that?

http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=6922

There are many posts on bringing real change by Sirota, and many critical views of Obama too especially on telecom immunity( that was when the liberal blogosphere and progressive activist went nuts for weeks on the FISA bill). He is optimistic about real changes taking shape faster under an Obama presidency.

Here's one from Obama's primary victory which answers partly the questions raised by Deepak and others in this thread:

Barack Obama & The Uprising
by: David Sirota
Jun 04, 2008

'This is an ongoing blog series from the national book tour of The Uprising.'

NEW YORK - Last night at the Strand Bookstore in New York City, a terrific panel discussed the uprising's impact on the current presidential campaign - and what Barack Obama's victory means for the uprising. The panel included Andrea Batista Schlesinger of the Drum Major Institute, Dan Cantor of the Working Families Party, and Joel Barkin of the Progressive States Network. You can watch it here.

Obama's victory is proof positive that the uprising that I describe in my book is real, and making its impact felt at the highest levels of electoral politics. Above all else, Obama has been a change candidate, and the uprising is - at its core - a backlash to the status quo. To his credit, Obama used his personal skills as an organizer, his understanding of bottom-up uprisings, and his campaign's smart use of grassroots tools like the internet to channel today's populist uprising into his campaign. He should be congratulated for that.

But there are some potential downsides.

Matt Stoller has previously written that Obama has, in many ways, taken over the Democratic Party and, I would add, much of the outside architecture that supports the party. Groups like Moveon have essentially become the Obama campaign, mainly because they haven't really behaved fully as movement organizations distinct from partisan ones (I got into this a bit in my last dispatch about the Protest Industry and the Players). That allowed Obama to basically take them over because he positioned himself as the movement - an easy posturing when there is a dearth of ideological, issue-based organizing willing to take on both parties.

As the panel at The Strand discussed last night, without that ideological movement to pressure Obama (or whoever becomes president), the next occupant of the White House could very easily shun the uprising and simply reinforce the status quo - and, as I wrote in The Nation in 2006, Obama is precisely the kind of politician who needs constant pressuring if we are going to get real action from him.

As history has taught us over and over and over again, candidates, parties and elections are not movements - they are vehicles for them. Those who believe otherwise - and I fear that's a lot of people thanks to the media frenzy over this primary - are deluding themselves.

You'll notice, of course, which progressive organizations are really threatened by Obama's victory and which really aren't. All of the partisan-first groups could very well be threatened by a situation whereby Democrats win the White House and the presidency. Without Republicans to blame, the Partisan Warriors would be largely irrelevant. But groups like unions, the Working Families Party and others focused on pressuring both parties for change - these groups aren't threatened in the least by an Obama presidency. On the contrary, they will become more important because they will be the instruments for the uprising to pressure officeholders for concrete policies.

This, of course, doesn't mean that groups like Moveon cannot - or will not - change their posture. I think they probably will. But as the general election campaign starts, so too does the work of creating the environment for long-term change. That means starting to look at how to ramp up that pressure system - the one that is necessary if today's populist uprising is going to start bringing about real results.

Hi Sharon,

I had the same results and in every article there was something that rang a bell in me :)

Funny thing for me on this Internet is that it is a labyrinth in itself and when I google a question, most of the time the results are very to the point for my journey at that moment.

Maybe this is already Artificial Intelligence.

Had a wonderful day, a real holiday, 28C, reading a book in the shadow in a nice garden here, with lots of roses.

My husband made a lot of pictures of flowers, butterflies and bees with his digital camera today, some of them so beautiful!

Thanks for your response, hope you are doing good?

Much love,

Mieke

Of my environment
of my culture
of society
of a race
of God

I am a product

Worthy of a vote
The natural selection
Prone to go on pilgrimages

.

Zig zags are more than familiar---~

.

Freyja,

Thanks for the exhaustive references. I am still plowing through the 15-page New Yorker article. It fills out a lot of details, but basically confirms my opinion re Obama.

I have read a few of David Sirota's columns, and I generally like what he writes.

I will be interested to read up on his ideas about the Washington "center" versus the people's center in the USA. I am not new to the idea that the two are different, nor new to the idea that what the folks inside the beltway want is different from what most Americans want.

So I'm looking forward to following up on some of those references after I finish the New Yorker article (in my -haha - so-called "free time").

Hi Mieke,
What a beautiful day you've had! I'm good. I'm learnin :) Nick's learning to use the pottey. He's decided he is ready. I'm so proud of him. He'll be 4 in November and I've been getting flack from people, 'is he out of diapers yet??'. But I wanted him to decide. To be honest, I worried at times if he ever would. But just this past couple days, he has decided it's time. He's growing up, changing every day.
I cherish him.

Keep enjoying your holiday, and your husband. Love hearing about it.

Much love,
Sharon

Hi Indy,

So glad that you noticed that Obama had voted for a bill that even Bob Barr criticized when on Countdown.

I had seen Ron Paul on Youtube appear in a college dorm with a college student and that impressed me a lot about him, that he is not too big a politican to go to students in college dorms.

But mostly I voted for him because of his reference to George Washington's Farewell Address when leaving office, as few people even know about it at all. It had nothing to do with race, even though I admit that the blacks of New Orleans who turned against Washington and wanted their schools' names to be changed because he had once owned slaves I found to be offensive and very racist.

So Freya, you should think before speaking about racist attitudes.

I did appreciate all your work on behalf of the Libertarians though. You surely like to write posts.

In fact, the more I read posts on this board the more I realized how poorly prepared Obama is for the office of the presidency. He needs to spend more time in DC in Congress before taking on the job of the top man. This is all too much a joke in terms of making him become the role of the main character in The Man by Wallace years ago.

His candidacy has long been in the making but I still believe it is too premature.

In the end, except for George Bush who has proved otherwise, most of the candidates who became president have proved that it would not matter which of them was elected as the events seem to make the man, more than the man the events. I do believe George made his entire term in his administration happen as he wanted it to happen.

He brought about this war in Iraq rather than vice versa. He wanted it, he made it, so he can claim it...just like sweet Georgia Brown, Bush made it, he can claim it.

He even made his own caricature as the cowboy president, a true real Texan after all.

By the way, Indy, I did not know that Betsy S is also a Ron Paulist. Thanks for letting me know. I wonder if she even read my post yet.

I had been a registered democrat for years, but the party changed from what it had once been, a place for intellectuals, smart, bright people, and became a party for only special interest groups. I became independent, and prefer it that way. I am hoping that a third party may emerge, but frankly think all should be dissolved.

I don't think that Barack Obama is the best candidate for the office, but he has youth and race as his trump card, and may win just due to Imagery instead of substance. John McCain is just another John Kerry, both of whom have been smart enough to marry rich women who are both smarter and better than either one of the men, but the men at least admit to that too.

So once again, America is screwed!

Arizonasunrise wrote:
#65

"So Freya, you should think before speaking about racist attitudes.

I did appreciate all your work on behalf of the Libertarians though. You surely like to write posts."

[...]

Arizonasunrise, your passive aggression is noted.

"I don't think that Barack Obama is the best candidate for the office, but he has youth and race as his trump card, and may win just due to Imagery instead of substance."

Youth and race are also his drawbacks. Which are being exploited more than they pay dividends if seen as a sole element of today's identity politics. the only way the GOP can win this thing is going overtly negative (as we are already seeing) and making racists attacks. (McCain will condemn some of these racist attacks, but his surrogates and FOX friends will do his dirty work) His coalition of youth and minorities is typical of Democratic coalition. John Kerry for ex. won 85- 95 % of Black vote. Democrats consistently win such margins in all elections. He might win because of imagery, but that's part of the political process. He has a lot of substance which apparently is out of your grasp due to lack of substance in your thinking.

"Hi Indy,

So glad that you noticed that Obama had voted for a bill that even Bob Barr criticized when on Countdown."

It seems you really think, I - and others writing in this thread -- support Obama blindly, without looking at him critically, like you. You may not be a Ron Paul fanatic but you are a low information voter who know little details of issues and stances of politicians whom you may criticize or support.

You have no clue about the FISA debate refrred to by Barr, and no one cares if Barr criticized Obama on the Bill -- of cousre he will, he is running on a true libertarian ticket, unlike Ron Paul who in fact a conservative campaign -- its the progressives and liberals on the left who criticized Obama and he explained himself painstakingly and listening to them. They will be there to remind him of his promises and keep him honest if he gets elected.

Bob Barr even made an appearance at the high profile Netroots Nation convention of the progressive activists a week ago, which was also attended by Pelosi and Al Gore.

You shouldn't really be talking about politics and presidents and presidential candidates -- present and past -- unless you back up your statements with real arguments and informed opinions, and not just by reiterating your perceptions to confirm your false beliefs and ignorant views and caricature politics.

Exactly!

And now....arizonasunset...you to have been diagnosed by Dr. Freeya! passive aggressive! you should be honored...you low info dunderhead!

Dr. Freeya, of the subspecies 'prickus majorus' is going to provide free diagnosis of all IB'ers..his services are provided free of charge!

Gather round all....

:).....sorry Freeya...just can't break the habit!!

"The name Freyja comes from Norse mythology.... a goddess of several realms: beauty and love, mediating between peace and violence, presiding over the living and the dead. I very much enjoy archetypes and myths, as much as they are concepts, as is everything else in phenomenality. Am very fond of Joseph Campbell's work.

Personally, i would very much like to continue this discussion we had started...didn't want you to think i left it dead in the water; i will need a window of a few days...and would especially like to address your question below about how adherence to a particular path can reinforce one's attachments rather than dissolving them.

So, as Arnold says, "I'll be back".

cheers

Freyja"

38. Posted by Freyja on November 28, 2007 11:35 PM

http://www.intentblog.com/archives/2007/11/whos_listening.html

Ref. 70

There's a good discussion on psychology and therapy in that thread. Go read.

I can't presume to know the depth of his sincerity, what motivates Obama or how successful an Obama presidency might be.
What I do know is that his words inspire me to be hopeful about what can change after eight long years of Bush/Cheney looking out for their ties to Saudi oil and Haliburton's bottom line.

Just for the record, what has Barack Obama ever done? What bills has he sponsored? What books has he written? How long has he been in the Senate? Before that, what did he do? Anything that suggests that he should be a presidential nominee?

Have the Democrats gone so bellyup that this is all that they can get?

The tragedy of America is that because of Bill Clinton's promiscuous behaviour with women the Bible belt felt compelled to elect George Bush to usher out the bad smell of Monica Lewinsky who had testified that the President had had sexual relations with her in the White House. Now it is due to Halliburton and Iraq that the electorate is overreacting to Bible Belt politics so that a junior Senator is the choice of a very weak Democratic party to run for office of the president of the United States. The USA has become a very bad joke in the practice of Democracy.

I need not read ten dozen publications and pretentiously cite paragraphs of commentary by the news media to prove whether I do or do not know what is happening in the life of bad politics and bad government in America. No wonder no nation in the world respects the USA any more.

It is all just too reactionary without any real regard for the importance and power of the office.

It's become painfully clear that there are some mouth-breathers out there who still aren't familiar with Obama's accomplishments.

#73 Arizonasunrise writes:

"Just for the record, what has Barack Obama ever done? What bills has he sponsored? What books has he written? How long has he been in the Senate? Before that, what did he do? Anything that suggests that he should be a presidential nominee?"

Listen -- it ain't that he has a thin resume. It's that people just don't know what he's done.

Don't be a dummy.

This is to everyone -- when your smart-ass conservative friend asks you to name a bill that Obama helped write or get passed, here's a pretty big list to choose from.

Feel free to share it with a friend, or send it off to that asshole relative who sent you the "ZOMG MUSLIM?!" e-mail.

Here are just a few highlights from Barack Obama's career as a US Senator: specific pieces of legislation, what they meant and how they were passed.

*The Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act
Introduced by Sen. John McCain in May 2005, and cosponsored by Sen. Edward Kennedy. Barack Obama added three amendments to this bill.

While the bill was never voted on in the Senate, the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Acts of 2006 and 2007, respectively, drew heavily upon the wording of this bill.

*The Lugar-Obama Cooperative Threat Reduction.
Introduced by Sen. Barack Obama, Sen. Dick Lugar and Sen. Tom Coburn.

First introduced in November 2005 and enacted in 2007, this bill expanded upon the successful Nunn-Lugar threat reduction, which helped secure weapons of mass destruction and related infrastructure in former Soviet Union states.

Lugar-Obama expanded this nonproliferation program to conventional weapons -- including shoulder-fired rockets and land mines. When the bill received $48 million in funding, Obama said, "This funding will further strengthen our ability to detect and intercept illegal shipments of weapons and materials of mass destruction, enhancing efforts to prevent nuclear terrorism."

*Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006

This act of Congress, introduced by Senators Obama and Coburn, required the full disclosure of all entities or organizations receiving federal funds in FY2007.

Despite a "secret hold" on this bill by Senators Ted Stevens and Robert Byrd, the act passed into law and was signed by President Bush. The act had 43 cosponsors, including John McCain.

The act created this Web site: http://www.usaspending.gov/

which provides citizens with valuable information about government-funded programs. You trace every penny of trillions of federal spending. That's transparency.

*Democratic Republic of the Congo Relief, Security, and Democracy Promotion Act

This law helped specify US policy toward the Congo, and states that the US should work with other donor nations to increase international contributions to the African nation.

The bill marked the first federal legislation to be enacted with Obama as its primary sponsor. Following this legislation's passage, Obama toured Africa, traveling to South Africa, Kenya, Djibouti, Ethiopia and Chad. He spoke forcefully against ethnic rivalries and political corruption in Kenya.

*Honest Leadership and Open Government Act
In the first month of the 110th Congress, Obama worked with Sen. Russ Feingold to pass this law, which amends and strengthens the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995.

Specificially, the changes made by Obama and Feingold requires public disclosure of lobbying activity and funding, places more restrictions on gifts for members of Congress and their staff, and provides for mandatory disclosure of earmarks in expenditure bills.

The House passed the bill, 411-8, on July 31. The Senate approved it, 83-14, on Aug. 2. At the time, Obama called it "the most sweeping ethics reform since Watergate."

*Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act

Following the Republican-sponsored voter intimidation tactics seen in mostly black counties in Maryland during the 2006 midterm elections, Obama worked with Sen. Chuck Schumer to introduce this bill.

The bill has been referred to the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary. Obama said of the bill, "This legislation would ensure that for the first time, these incidents are fully investigated and that those found guilty are punished."

*The Obama-McCain Climate Change Reduction Bill

The Obama-McCain bill, which is co-sponsored by Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., would cut emissions by two-thirds by 2050.

[McCain recently forgot even this bill he cosponsored with Obama when he attacked him on Climate Change.]

*Iraq War De-Escalation Act of 2007

Introduced by Obama, this binding act would stop the planned troop increase of 21,500 in Iraq, and would also begin a phased redeployment of troops from Iraq with the goal of removing all combat forces by March 31, 2008.

Explaining the bill, Obama said it reflects his view that the problems in Iraq do not have a military solution. "Our troops have performed brilliantly in Iraq, but no amount of American soldiers can solve the political differences at the heart of somebody else's civil war," Obama said.

*Amendments to the 2008 Defense Authorization Bill

Obama worked with Sen. Kit Bond to limit, through this bill, the Pentagon’s use of personality disorder discharges in the FY 2008 Defense Authorization bill.

This provision would add additional safeguards to discharge procedures and require a thorough review by the Government Accountability Office. This followed news reports that the Pentagon inappropriately used these procedures to discharge service members with service-connected psychological injuries.

"With thousands of American service members suffering day in and day out from the less visible wounds of war, reports that the Pentagon has improperly diagnosed and discharged service members with personality disorders are deeply disturbing," said Senator Obama. "This provision will add additional safeguards to the Department of Defense’s use of this discharge and mandate a comprehensive review of these policies."

*The Comprehensive Nuclear Threat Reduction provision

Working with Sen. Hagel and Rep. Adam Schiff, Obama authored this provision, which would require the president to develop a comprehensive plan for ensuring that all nuclear weapons and weapons-usable material at vulnerable sites around the world are secure by 2012 from the threats that terrorists have shown they can pose.

A provision from the Obama-Hagel bill was passed by Congress in December 2007 as an amendment to the State-Foreign Operations appropriations bill.

"It is imperative that we build and sustain a truly global effort under an aggressive timeline to secure, consolidate, and reduce stockpiles of nuclear weapons and weapons-usable material to keep them out of the wrong hands. The comprehensive nuclear threat reduction plan required by this provision is an important step in that effort," Obama said of the provision.

These are just a selection of the bills that Obama has introduced and co-sponsored. You owe it to yourself to be able to cite a few of these off the top of your heads so you can give people the gist of them when they challenge the Senator's accomplishments.

At the end of the day, I will take Obama's good judgment over McCain's longevity in Washington any day of the week. It's more important for a politician to learn from his or her mistakes than it is for them to present the same old failed ideas over and over and expecting a better result.

It's true Obama is a relative newcomer on the politican scene, but he has already accomplished much in the areas of nuclear non-proliferation, government accountability, environmental responsibility and others than people with thrice the experience as a law maker. As you can see, he has a strong bipartisan record, not just in US Senate but also in the Illinos State Senate where his legislative record is exemplary.

ON THE MEDIA
In study, evidence of liberal-bias bias

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-onthemedia27-2008jul27,0,712999.story]

Cable talking heads accuse broadcast networks of liberal bias -- but a think tank finds that ABC, NBC and CBS were tougher on Barack Obama than on John McCain in recent weeks.

"The Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University, where researchers have tracked network news content for two decades, found that ABC, NBC and CBS were tougher on Obama than on Republican John McCain during the first six weeks of the general-election campaign.

You read it right: tougher on the Democrat."

Ref. Yogi-one, Freyja, "moving to center" & "Centrism"

Jeff Cohen: Americans Move Left, New York Times Misses It
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-cohen/americans-move-left-new-y_b_115208.html

"It's a cherished myth of many in establishment punditry that most Americans perpetually and happily find their way to the safe center of American politics."

"So the Times presents Gallup data showing a clear trend toward the left, and calls it a "Move to the Middle." Is the assumption that we were mostly rightwingers a few years ago? Or is the "move to the middle" line simply more reassuring to an elite newspaper?"

"The reality is that longterm trends in American opinion are generally leftward on issues, as documented in well-researched studies."

**************
Media Matters:

The Progressive Majority:
Why a Conservative America is a Myth

http://mediamatters.org/progmaj/report
**************

"It's a reality that troubles those Beltway pundits who constantly goad Barack Obama toward "the center" on issues like Iraq and NAFTA -- when they mean away from the center of mass opinion and upwards toward the center of elite opinion.

A demagogue like Sean Hannity instinctively knows this reality, which is why his attacks on Obama emphasize WrightAyresBitterMichelle more than issues."

Preity, Obama isn't just about turning legislative accomplishment into Presidential action. His experince in Washington is very less, but that's not a metric to speculate on the success of him being a president. The most successful American presidents are those who had less Wahsington experince, and the wort are those with a huge amount of experince. Apart from his legislative record, Obama's experience as a constitutional scholar & teacher, as a civil rights lawyer and a community organizer would be relevant for the job of a President. His short US Senate record may not impressive or important but he has inspired people and will do important things as President.

I would ask a person - who is unaware of Obama's positions - what he/she thinks is the most important issue and give Obama's plans or platform. But people like Arizonasunrise are not looking to learn things, such people aren't sincere or serious about the candidate or his stances. So, nothing will convince them to change their biased opinions.

***

Another thing is, people like Ruth and AZ - who have their views called out or challenged here for over a period of time got their egos entangled into all this... they have invested a lot of "concern" and negative energy towards Obama over a period of time, and they will continue to sound more and more desperate, utterly dismissing Obama and his views and the vast number of informed people who support him. As they say- ostrich, beach and a dog's tail.

Humans have a tendency to disregard any info that challenges your ignorance and bias. That's true but we can still aspire to be more objective. Ruth says she is turned off some posters like me, who make arguments or post stuff in support of Obama, rather than being convinced to change prior opinions. AZ follows suit, too. Well, I think its good, seeing people like them, many more people will be turned off by such irrational behavior.

To come out of this vicious circle, when ridiculed, will be a test of integrity and character for such people. And I know I can modify my behavior to help them see things more objectively, but as I said, it is more progressive to make an example out of them, which would be a better lesson for the group as a whole. It's upto them though. It may be slow and painful process, or it might take some jolt of lighting wisdom somehow hitting you, or you can die in denial protecting your ego and opinions to the end.

#78, the line should read "Ruth says she is turned off *by* some posters..."

" I would ask a person - who is unaware of Obama's positions - what he/she thinks is the most important issue and give Obama's plans or platform" Irvine # 78

To me as a European having heard his speech in Berlin:

the most important issue is that by inspiring people he is giving them their selfworth back.

He is trying to unite instead of to divide.

From what Preity describes, he has already been doing this from his first day as a senator. He has probably been doing this during the largest part of his life.

He has already achieved a lot :)

Yes, I believe it does.

Hi Deepak and everyone,
Yes, the chances are slim but I'm hoping with all my mind, heart and soul that he will be able to at least reform Washington as a start. As it is, he has already started the ball rolling and we shall see if it will gain momentum. I am so inspired by his speech in Berlin and all his other speeches...and I can tell from the crowd in Berlin they too were inspired. I am hoping that a critical mass will be formed to change the fate of America...inspite of all the cynics and skeptics we have here.
Love,
Martha

Indeed MarthaD!

'Hope: It Could Happen to You'

Its a people powered new pro-Obama ad that spoofs a particularly cringe-inducing variety of pharmaceutical advertising. (Link at the bottom.)

"MoveOn has announced it will spend $150,000 to air this new pro-Obama TV ad on MTV and Comedy Central. The ad -- which won MoveOn's “funniest video” in its recent ad contest -- features Rider Strong of "Boy Meets World" and Amber Benson of "Buffy the Vampire Slayer."

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/07/28/1228960.aspx

In response to Let Freedom Ring's ad, MoveOn.org has decided that the second political ad MTV airs should be one with a slightly different take on Barack.

From their e-mail blast:

"MTV just started accepting political ads. And the first political ad that millions of young people will see is a negative attack on Barack Obama--saying he's "worse than a flip-flopper" and accusing him of no longer being against the war. It's outrageous.

The Republicans' strategy is clear: kill the hope that's brought millions of new young voters out of the woodwork.

We can't let that happen. And as it turns out, we've got a funny, positive, hopeful way to fight back.

The "funniest ad" award winner in our Obama in 30 Seconds contest is a perfect counterpoint to the cynicism-mongering ad on MTV.

Watch it below:

It's a solid, funny ad and a perfect counter to Let Freedom Ring's lame and outdated anti-Obama campaign. MoveOn would also like to get the ad up on Comedy Central and they're calling on us to help raise the $150,000 cost of the entire adbuy -- that's just $25 from 6,000 people. So, go here to contribute to getting this ad on the air.

https://pol.moveon.org/donate/brainonhope.html

MoveOn is the quintessential people-powered organization and the Obama in 30 seconds ads were produced by MoveOn members, so it's only appropriate for us to be the ones that pay to get it on the air.

Rider Strong, of Boy Meets World fame, makes a cameo. He's the guy at the end holding a baby chicken.

Enjoy!

******

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BncNpB6IZ9I

******

Watch it and get a free Obama button from MoveOn--no strings attached.

Just click here:

http://pol.moveon.org/obamabuttons/

#51:
Wow... I almost never read whole threads if they are long, but the discussion here has kept my attention. It has remained remarkably free of name-calling and other juvenile tactics.

Yogi-One:
What a great observation! What does this mean?

Does it mean increased health with less toxic communication?

Does it mean that individuals are not indentifying with negativity?

Does it mean there is new space for creative and diverse dialogue?

Does it mean that there is new maturity in this blog system of connected humans?

Does it mean that people are reacting less and beaming more?

What does it mean? Is it a fluke or a new pattern?

Is it intentional with consciousness or is it unconscious? Is it both? One having effect on the other...beaming as one?

Love,

Trish~~

"Ruff competition? Labrador 'runs' for mayor"

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/25917712?GT1=43001

For Anyone Concerned About Our Nation:

It's rather disconcerting to read all the commentaries and arguments about who is the best presidential candidate when our country faces so many more critical issues. No matter who is elected the critical issues will continue and we will not see a cohesive movement to solve the social, economic, environmental, and political crises that we are experiencing.

Have you ever heard about figures such as George Soros in the news coverage of critical issues of current times? George Soros is the invisible hand behind much of the MANIPULATION OF OUR CULTURE. He is using 400 million of his dollars a year to fund groups that are dedicated to destroying our culture and its traditional values.

The media has abdicated its responsibility to inform the public of such dangerous people as Soros. Instead of alerting the public to the sponsorship of anti-American activities by Soros and others, they give the public superficial news about stupid remarks made by would-be political leaders and so-called theatrical personalities who are presented as idols. There is no substantial representation made of actual movements being orchestrated to undermine the fabric of our society. The media is one of the greatest enemies our country has.

Why don't people "get real" and stop gossiping about inconsequential matters and face some real serious situations? Everybody seems content to keep arguing about who is the most likely figurehead to hold the stage for a moment of time - when the country is in a life or death struggle for survival. Let's address some crisis situations for a change and stop being led around by our noses by an indifferent media.

"Betsy" S.

Oh, my! I just watched Obama's Berlin video and he is amazing! That's our new president ... "A young male will be president of the US." Now I am beginning to see why. Obama is already performing his role and is powerful in spirit and heart.

Love, Char

GO OBAMA!

GO OBAMA

GO OBAMA!

GO OBAMA!

GO OBAMA!

GO OBAMA!

GO OBAMA!

GO OBAMA!

GO OBAMA!

GO OBAMA!

GO OBAMA!

GO OBAMA!

GO OBAMA!

GO OBAMA!

GO OBAMA!

GO OBAMA!

GO OBAMA!

GO OBAMA!

GO OBAMA!

GO OBAMA!

GO OBAMA!

GO OBAMA

GO OBAMA!

GO OBAMA!

GO OBAMA!

GO OBAMA!

GO OBAMA!

GO OBAMA!

GO OBAMA!

GO OBAMA!

GO OBAMA!

GO OBAMA!

GO OBAMA!

GO OBAMA!

GO OBAMA!

GO OBAMA!

GO OBAMA!

GO OBAMA!

GO OBAMA!

GO OBAMA!

dear IW,
you say:
"To come out of this vicious circle, when ridiculed, will be a test of integrity and character for such people. And I know I can modify my behavior to help them see things more objectively, but as I said, it is more progressive to make an example out of them, which would be a better lesson for the group as a whole. It's upto them though. It may be slow and painful process, or it might take some jolt of lighting wisdom somehow hitting you, or you can die in denial protecting your ego and opinions to the end."

Do you feel it is your role at IB to point out what you consider flawed thinking?

It is possible to agree or disagree on issues, and discuss ideas and hopes and dreams for America and its next president, without putdowns.

love,
~ Kate

Hi Deepak,
Inspiration with action - can bring about changes. America is ripe for change and grappling with the issues you mention:
"reforming Washington, reversing the enormous national debt, updating the tax code, offering universal health care, and establishing a new image abroad"
(My sister lives in France, and she says the image of America in Europe is deeply tarnished).

love,
~ Kate

#86

With seven plus years of BushCo constitution-shredding and democracy destruction, you think we're "in a life or death struggle for survival" because of George Soros?!?!? You OK over there?

Re. 86

Like wha?

"Why don't people "get real" and stop gossiping about inconsequential matters and face some real serious situations?"

but...

"Have you ever heard about figures such as George Soros in the news coverage of critical issues of current times? George Soros is the invisible hand behind much of the MANIPULATION OF OUR CULTURE. He is using 400 million of his dollars a year to fund groups that are dedicated to destroying our culture and its traditional values."

By the way, I have heard, Bill O' Reilly can't gossip enough about that nonsense.

Let's do it here!

Ref. 86 George Soros...

400 million a year?

Goddamn, how can I get on that gravy train?

You see George Soros = 11 letters

11 letters x 2 words (George Soros) = 22

The 22nd President was GROVER CLEVELAND

Cleveland = Peter Griffin's African-American Friend

Grover = BLUE MONSTER

BLUE = DEMOCRAT

DEMOCRAT MONSTER = GEORGE SOROS

IT ALL MAKES SO MUCH SENSE NOW!!!!

THE TRUTH IS OUT THERE PEOPLES!!!!!!

Yo, John, let's GOSSIP... NOT:

Sheldon Adelson: GOP's Answer To George Soros?
July 25, 2008 02:54 AM

Sheldon Adelson, the 74-year-old casino billionaire who has become the third richest man in America and who has strong ties to the hard-line Likud Party in Israel, has emerged this year a major benefactor of the American right. Past evidence suggests that Adelson will capitalize on his ascent to the top of the Republican money elite to try to build opposition in America to any Middle East peace settlement calling for the division of Israel into two states, one Jewish, the other Palestinian.

[...]

In the current election cycle, Adelson has surpassed such past financial mainstays of conservative causes and of the GOP as oilman-corporate raider T. Boone Pickens ($4.6 million 2003-4), Houston real estate magnate Bob Perry ($18.5 million 2003-6) and former Univision CEO Jerry Perenchio ($9.1 million 2003-6).

[...]

According to some estimates, Adelson has put over $30 million in the 2007-8 cycle and has now even surpassed George Soros, the Democratic financier who in 2003-4 and 2005-6 broke all records by investing $27 million in liberal get-out-the-vote and media campaigns.

[...]

Adelson does not speak for the mainstream of American Jewry. Sixty-two percent of American Jews support Barack Obama according to a June Gallup Poll. A separate survey by Gallup found that 77 percent of American Jews -- more than almost any other American group -- believe the Iraq War was a mistake.

Although Adelson's adamant opposition to a two-state solution is also at odds with the opinion of a majority of American Jews, his influence is considered significant. His views have led him to turn against Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, a shift described in a recent New Yorker piece.

[...]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/25/sheldon-adelson-gops-answ_n_114899.html

Supular !

Click my name

Thanks, Preity, I appreciate all your efforts to convince me that Obama has worked hard while in his short term as Senator. I know that he used Abraham Lincoln as his example when he entered the race.

Lincoln too had not spent that much time in the Senate before running for office, so Obama said.

When Jerry Brown ran for office, he listed an entire booklet of his record for examination, and I have always been impressed with the need for politicians to do that so that their constituents can know what to expect from them if they continue in office. I suspect that his reminding people of all that he had accomplished while serving them has made it possible for him to be elected so often to so many different positions in California.

So I expect the same from other candidates.

By the way, I had received an email with all kinds of reasons as to why Obama should not be considered and as I do not know how to forward those emails here I just paraphrased what was on them, wanting to see how anyone would respond.

One that I received today was examined in Snopes so there is no doubt that there is a lot of work going on in political circles to reach voters somehow.

Thanks again,

Hi Freyja, I read all posts 56 through 60,written by you, and noted all the references that you made. On a post of yours I noticed that one is by the University of Chicago democrats for Obama.

I just said that you are prolific and I believe I noted one from the Huffington Post. I also subscribe to Huffington Post briefs but I do not take their articles and post them here as I believe that if a reader wishes to read that material, he can do so without my direction.

I also watch most political television programming but I do not intend to use any of the guests or hosts on Hardball, Campbell Brown's politics, Andrea Mitchell's politics, or Countdown, or Bill O'Reilly, etc.etc.etc as topics for posts here.

In my opinion, one man's opinion is just that, an opinion.

If a candidate wants to get himself elected in a responsible way, the best way is to offer his record, his works, and his goals as the way to impress his electorate.

Just a grinning smile, a handshake, a trip to Afghanistan or Iraq, or a conference with top economic leaders is not going to impress me so much as the real work record will do.

I expect all who are conservative to support their candidate who still continues to work for their platform of right to life, less government, lower taxes, and supreme court justices who reflect their ideals.

Likewise, I expect all who support freedom of choice, higher taxes, government created work forces, etc. will support those candidates who admit that they will raise taxes to initiate more government funded programs.

In the end, the issues should remain the cause for selecting a candidate, but we all know better than that, don't we? It is going to be a repudiation of George Bush in the end, and most likely, it may be more surprising when the vote finally becomes tallied than expected. Leastwise I hope that this election has a few surprises in store for us.

Hi Betsy,

So you believe that the media is the villain in the game of poltiics. There is no doubt that the media does often edit news to slant a story to the way that they want it to be seen and heard. I listened to Keith Olbermann on Countdown the other evening discuss how CBS actually altered an answer from John McCain so this problem is analyzed in the media as they play watchdog on one another.

I just now said that I would not quote any of the t.v. shows that I watch but I had to make an exception in this case. I had noticed earlier that ABC had also deliberately edited news from Iraq that omitted important references to John McCain as well. So your position that the media may be the villain may be nearly correct. If all that the media did was to show the facts and only the facts it would be fine. But the truth is that each network does often splice a story to fit its own agenda it would appear.

Fox is often criticized for being too conservative, and both ABC and NBC are sharply criticized for being too liberal. The daily newspapers have always been slanted in their editorial opinions but on an editorial page, that is to be expected.

However, television is responsible for delivering factual stories, but we are learning all the time that facts can be altered to show us what the t.v. producers want us to see.

There were some great responses to your input about the manipulation of the media by multimillionaires. Money always talks!

For Anyone Concerned About Our Nation:

Some of the news not being presented by the media, would-be "character builders" is that which was provided by an In-Service Military Man, CPT Jeffrey S. Porter, Battle Captain, TF Wasatch in Bagram, Afghanistan regarding Obama's visit to Bagram, Afghanistan. Obama was there for about an hour and from his plane he headed directly to a conference room to meet with the General and then headed to the Clam Shell area where the recreational area is located. He had a "photo-op" there for his publicity pictures. Obama gave no acknowledgement to the military men who were lined up to greet him and to shake his hand. In CPT Jeffrey Porter's words, "What you see in the news is all fake".

In reference to Indy's comments in Posting No. 93 regarding millionaire Sheldon Adelson's efforts to build opposition in America to any Middle East peace settlement calling for the division of Israel into two-states, one Jewish, the other Palestinian, I say, "Keep up the good efforts Mr. Adelson". The Palestinians will not accept peace on any terms and have always displayed no respect for human life in their killing of children and sponsorship of suicide bombers. Our country's involvement in the politics of these two countries is geared to curry favor with the Saudis (known sponsors of terrorism).

Then we have Barack Obama who talks about having peace talks with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran who has vowed to destroy Israel. How many terrorist mentaliities are we expected to tolerate and give credence to by associating with them? They are only encouraged by any public acknowledgment shown them and are interpreting this as weakness. Where has sanity and decent judgment gone?

"Betsy" S.

Dear 'Betsy' S.,

"Where has sanity and decent judgment gone?"

Well, in the first place, the only place they can reside is in oneself :).

Obama is not president yet, so he cannot represent his country as if he is already. So he cannot visit the troups in Afghanistan like president Bush can.

What Obama is doing is already very promising on itself. He is the first one (as far as my memory goes) who has gone on a journey abroad to create goodwill for his country without being a President but simply as a good citizen of his country trying to talk peace and trying to bring parties together.

Maybe what he is doing is reminding your government of their responsibilities towards their promises they have made in the past.

I, being a European, happen to believe that what Obama is doing, is uniting people instead of dividing them, so that united we can at least be able to find a solution together.

Afghanistan is under the umbrella of the United Nations and not under the umbrella of the United States (like for instance Irak).

Dear Heartphone,

As you are looking from the outside in to situations that have been developing over a period of time, I guess you are able to look with rose colored glasses on what is currently transpiring. The reality is that Obama will support higher taxes (not good for the dignity of the individual), support more government programs which will require more taxpayers' money, and support a judiciary system with radical rulings, encourage abortion, and entitle criminals to more than their fare share of rights.

I wish Obama was as idealistic as you seem to think he is.

"Betsy" S.

AZS #95

"When Jerry Brown ran for office, he listed an entire booklet of his record for examination, and I have always been impressed with the need for politicians to do that so that their constituents can know what to expect from them if they continue in office. I suspect that his reminding people of all that he had accomplished while serving them has made it possible for him to be elected so often to so many different positions in California.

So I expect the same from other candidates."

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/

Baarck Obama published his plans - just as he announced his candidacy - for examination long before any other candidate did.

Campaign organizers distributed the hard copies to anyone who is interested during the primaries.

Betsy S.,

"Where has sanity and decent judgment gone?"

Read your comments, now realize you weren't asking a rhetorical question, but are in need of decency and sanity for yourself.

I suggest you look for it outside of hate radio, right wing newsites and junk emails.

A solid education in history, philosophy and political science, a willingness to critically examine the ideas presented to you in the course of that education, and some sort of moral and ethical guidance.

If all else fails, stop taking the hallucinogenics.

"Betsy" S. writes " higher taxes (not good for the dignity of the individual),"

Incorrect.

Actually the tax hikes we made but repealed at the beginning of the 20th century and brought back expanded in the New Deal were the biggest advances modern America ever made for the dignity of the masses of individuals who became the global middle class here and across Europe based on those policies.

Nothing in 10,000 years of civilization ever approached that advancement in the dignity of the individual.

***********

"We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy...." --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

CPT Jeffrey S. Porter was completely, thoroughly discredited. He may face disciplinary action as a result of his completely fraudulent smear.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/afghanistan.asp

Educate yourself, "Betsy" troll.

The guy who made the allegation apologized, but it seems the right wing noise machine distorts any semblance of a signal to moron receptors.

Betsy et al,

You're going to make me write a Weekly Intent blog entry just to upgrade the cognitive level around here.

And, fucking Deepak doesn't pay me enough.

I want a raise!

mini#103

Taxes in Somalia are low

... I so envy the people who live there.

Irvine#103

Excellent catch!!!

Thanks for the link. I'm getting tired of these lies.

To the ignorant Betsy S., on Taxes.... This is something that I posted at Intentblog in June when both candidates released their tax plans.

Over the past few days we have been treated to dueling tax policies from the two candidates, and if there were ever any question about the contrast between the two, and the direction Obama wants to take, this was it. Obama made it clear that not only is he serious about doing something about inequality in the country, he understands the role of tax policy in exacerbating the divisions that began to grow in the late 1990s.

One of the best breakdowns of the two plans comes from CNN:

http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/11/news/economy/candidates_taxproposals_tpc/?postversion=2008061113

The most thorough comes from the non-partisan Tax Policy Center:

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm

What is clear is that Obama intends to require those who have benefited from the uneven prosperity of the last 10 years to give something back to the country that made that wealth possible. That the purchasing power of ordinary Americans is falling dangerously should be apparent to anyone; spreading prosperity more widely is not only a matter of fairness, it is essential to keeping our economic system humming and preserving social stability.

Compare the treatment of the top 1% under the two plans, per the Tax Policy Institute:

BREAKING DOWN THE NUMBERS

Here's how the average tax bill could change in 2009 if either John McCain's or Barack Obama's tax proposals were fully in place.

MCCAIN OBAMA
Income Avg. tax bill Avg. tax bill
Over $2.9M (top .1%) - $269,364 +$701,885
$603K and up (top 1%) - $45,361 +$115,974
$227K-$603K (95-99%) - $7,871 +$12
$161K-$227K (90-95%) - $4,380 -$2,789
$112K-$161K (80-90%) - $2,614 -$2,204
$66K-$112K (60-80%) - $1,009 -$1,290
$38K-$66K (41-60%) - $319 -$1,042
$19K-$38K (21-40%) - $113 -$892
Under $19K (0-20%) - $19 -$567

There are three things to notice here: first, under McCain's proposal no one's taxes are raised to replace lost revenue. He evidently believes the Tax Fairy will take care of things. Second, under Obama ONLY the top 1% of earners will see their taxes increased. For the top .1% (approximately 335,000 filers) the difference between the two plans is almost a $1 million difference in their tax bills. Of course for the tippy top, the 146,000 tax filers with the multi-million dollar incomes, the increased tax bill will be very high indeed. Third, the lower four quintiles (0-80%) do better under Obama's plan than McCain's, increasingly better as one goes down the income ladder. This is real relief for the middle class and working poor.

So Obama is pretty aggressively making the case for greater tax equity, appealing to the 99% who will do better under his tax plan. But don't expect the top 1% to give it up willingly, despite how much their incomes have increased over the last ten years. They will fight Obama tooth and nail, through surrogates and shadow groups, with faux populist rhetoric and traditional GOP dirty tricks.

Under current law, except for certain provisions relating to retirement savings, all of the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 expire in 2010. For the most part the law would automatically revert to what it was in 2001. (This was done to disguise the long-term effect of the Bush tax cuts if they were made permanent.) The figures in the table above are based on reductions average taxpayers would see from current tax levels if each candidate's proposals took effect in 2009, rather than measuring them as an increase or decrease from the levels to which taxes would revert if the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 simply sunsetted as current law provides.

The main differences between the plans are that Obama keeps most of the Bush tax cuts for those with incomes under $227,000 (all but the top 5%) but restores the top two income tax brackets to pre-Bush tax cut levels, raises the capital gains and dividend tax rates to a maximum of 25% for filers over $250,000 in AGI (top 3%), freezes the estate tax at next year's levels and restores the phase-out of many deductions for high-income filers.

In addition, Obama said again that he wants to make salaries over $250,000 subject to the Social Security tax, but continue to exempt wage and salary income between the current cap ($102,000) and $250,000. He believes this is preferable to raising the retirement age, something that would create a hardship for people in physically taxing occupations and in poorer health.

McCain would extend almost all of the Bush tax cuts but impose a small (15%) tax on estates above $5 million ($10 million per couple). He would further reduce corporate taxes.

Fact-checker Larry Rohter points out:

"Economists of various ideological persuasions, however, view Mr. McCain's assessment as inaccurate or exaggerated..... contrary to Mr. McCain's assertions, the Democrat's proposals, if enacted, would actually reduce taxes for the middle class."

"In a study of the candidates' plans made public Wednesday, the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center concluded that in contrast to Mr. McCain, "Senator Obama offers much larger tax breaks to low- and middle-income taxpayers and would increase taxes on high-income taxpayers."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25133125/

As Scott Tiger at Intent blog pointed out "In his effort to run the best campaign of 1980, John McCain has hauled out the dusty tax-and-spend label from the GOP basement and tried to wrap it around Barack Obama. He's even opened the crate where they keep the "biggest tax increase in history" banner (well-worn, since Republicans use it every election cycle) to attach it to Obama's proposed tax plan. In a way, it's nice to see that Republicans don't bother to change one word of their approach, even when they've just finished executing the fiscal equivalent of a plane crash."

Ronald Reagan increased taxes even though he was a fiscal conservative, George H. W. Bush wanted to increase taxes although he famously said (Read My Lips. No. New. Taxes.) and lost the election to Bill Clinton. Clinton brought the economy back to shape and left office with over a 100 billion dollar surplus.

George W. Bush promised fiscal conservative and we got fiscal irresponsibility. Just yesterday great news came out that we are left with a 480 billion dollar deficit. Now we are forever in debt of George W. Bush!

Economists don't agree with the ridiculous McCain's plans at all. Get your facts right about tax plans and what works for a healthy economy.

How come all I ever have to see is someone labeling themselves "concerned" about something political, and I know instantly that they're stupid fascist liars?

Really: concern is a legitimate feeling. It's a kind of compassion that compels us to act. It's not like crazed rightwingers should have a monopoly on it. But just look at any person or group shrouding themselves with the "concerned" garment, and they're a jackbooted thug, a vicious propagandist, a murderous liar.

Is there some kind of denial projection that makes these maudlin "concerned" trolls into barking mad gangsters?

*Yawn*

I'm not an enthusiastic supporter of Senator Obama, and it's not my place to defend his proposals from the likes of "Betsy", but the worst enemy Republicans currently have with the American electorate is their own actions.

When I was a kid, I can remember that Republicans were "good" at two things: Foreign Policy and Fiscal Responsibility, as their pundits endlessly proclaimed. President Bush has thrown your credentials to the wind while your candidate has done the same.

Enjoy your forty years in the wilderness.

B.S. #100

"As you are looking from the outside in to situations that have been developing over a period of time, I guess you are able to look with rose colored glasses on what is currently transpiring."

And I guess Betsy is able to bury her head in the sand like many ignorant Americans who have no clue about the issues outside of the right wing noise machine.

"The reality is that Obama will support higher taxes (not good for the dignity of the individual), "

Really? Just goes to show that what a moron this person is, and why the propaganda of Right continues to works on a large portion of ignorant Americans.

"..support more government programs which will require more taxpayers' money,"

Okay, the Republicans are good at "talking" about small government but are for expanded power when it comes to spying on its citizens (FISA,) to turn the country into a police state, and are for greater executive power to the president. Bush and McCain are typical neo-cons. Obama on the other hand (has a record) and is for greater transparency in government and is against the abuse of executive power.

"and support a judiciary system with radical rulings, encourage abortion, and entitle criminals to more than their fare share of rights."

Radical ruling? Like Roe vs. Wade?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade

Its time to take back the Supreme Court from Bush's ideology and and implement the rule of law which is free of politics. Just a few days ago, the Justice Department has been found guilty of breaking the law who were discriminating and recruiting people based on political ideology, and whether or not a person supports Bush's polices. Outrageous to say the least.

Conservatism is for individual liberty, being pro-choice make it just that. It is up to the individual to make decisions and a woman deserves her reproductive rights.

Obama is "encouraging" abortions? Really?

Obama is not for encouraging 'abortion' and not even for pro-choice "100%" as some might assume, like say the fiercely 100% pro-life retards on the right, but for a woman's fundamental rights as a human being.

Then I guess, the republicans and the right wing religious extremists are not just encouraging, but are trying to pass government laws banning use of contraceptives, any sort of birth control, even discouraging sexual abstinence (because it is the will of God to bring forth life,) and intervene in any pregnancy complications where the fetus (that may not have any chance to survive outside the womb) is cut open from the womb at the expense of a certain death to the mother. There shouldn't be any reproductive rights for a woman in America, because they are simply machines of sex to give birth to life.

Lets have moms with 10-20 children all over America. Lets keep women in the role of giving birth and caring for children just like the stone age and medieval Europe and as in many parts of current Islamic world. How wonderful.

Fortunately, pro-choice on abortion has become clearly a mainstream position,(overwhelmingly among women than men) rather than what was thought to be a center-left position, over the recent years.

These naive criticisms listed on Obama is TYPICAL TO ALL DEMOCRATS. These are standard right wing talking points that are being regurgitated here.

"I wish Obama was as idealistic as you seem to think he is."

Thank God, for most of us 'idealism' is not religious bigotry, or even conservative principles. Obama is a progressive politician who appreciates the fundamental American values which transcend Left and Right.

Obama, or any leader, cannot persuade everyone with widely varying political ideologies. Most of the differences come from ignorance of the issues and the policy positions.

If George Soros is destroying the American values and culture by (supposedly) investing 400 million a year, then he should invest 600 million because he isn't killing the culture fast enough.

And I guess, Deepak Chopra and Mallika Chopra and most of the spiritual bloggers here are also killing American culture with their radical social and religious views and spiritual progressivism.

Be concerned. Be very concerned. Piss in your undies. But you won't find many here who would to join you under the bed.

The New York Times has posted Obama’s syllabi from his teaching years at the University of Chicago, and, like most Obama material from the 1990s, there’s a real continuity between even the tone of his course descriptions and his political style.

Inside Professor Obama’s Classroom
By Jodi Kantor
Examining the Documents

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/29/inside-professor-obamas-classroom/

Here’s how he described the final paper for a 1994 seminar on racism and law:

"I'll be looking for: a) a focused, tightly-crafted argument, and analytic rigor in working through the legal or policy problems raised by your topic; 2) a thorough examination of the diversity of opinion that exists on the issue or theme; 3) a willingness, after having looked at the various facets of the topic, to take a stand and offer concrete proposals or approaches to the problem."

www.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/politics/2008OBAMA_LAW/Obama_CoursePk.pdf

The pledge to both take in a wide range of opinion and take a stand – along with the fluid wordiness – is commonplace in most university classes, but it also echoes the rationale for Obama’s candidacy: that he took a stand on issues the war and that he’s going to be a post-partisan bridgemaker.

It also neatly lays out the reason why, even when he was a darling of the right, he irked conservatives like David Brooks [Brooks' most recent views is appreciation for Obama on his Education plans] – despite his willingness to entertain other notions, he always ended up on the left side of the aisle.

Regarding the issue of taxes, for years many Republicans have been pushing the flat tax concept, as it goes back twenty to thirty years for sure. I can remember receiving all kinds of info on it from Richard Lugar years ago. To date, this tax prospect has not been implemented by congress simply because the very rich and powerful know ALL the loopholes so that in the end, through their massive contributions they get great exemptions.

I do like the flat tax rate as I think it fair to all, since it could and would be proportioned to fit the actual income levels of the entire populus.

But it would probably eliminate the IRS. Gee, wouldn't that be a shame to have another bureauacracy eliminated?

The poor are forever overtaxed, and the present income tax program is simply helpful to only HRBlock and other agencies who provide services to poor unsuspecting souls who should not have to pay for help but do.

So why is it that the Republican party is the party that promotes sanity in taxes but is not supported by the Democratic party. Why? Probably because the Democrats benefit too much from the ongoing situation.

No, I do not think for one minute that raising taxes so that the very rich have to pay more for some congressman to pass a bill that enables his state to get a naval ship that his own state does not want, mainly, Mississippi, and you know which Senator it is who saw to it that happened, I am sure, Trent Lott, in case you don't know, is the way to be. I am opposed to raising taxes so that pork barrel spending just gets worse and worse.

I am also for one item vetoes for the President to exercise common sense to eliminate such nonsense from bills, but so far Congress is the problem in accomplishing that deed too.

Why all this ongoing mass confusion? Because the electorate does not care or do anything about it. They keep electing the same people repeatedly time and again to screw America over and over again!

The above comment by Arizona is either trollish, stupid or both...

MOVE ALONG

Among other things, the Line Item Veto is unconstitutional, Congress has tried to enact it and the Courts keep tossing it out.

"I do like the flat tax rate as I think it fair to all..."

It's only fair to the Uber Rich

You're confusing dollars with humanity.

No wonder the party of the idle rich has been the GOP.

It's only nominally fair.

In fact, in economic terms, a flat tax regressive. And it's funny...apparently taxes only pay for porkbarrel projects. Necessary public services that people like and uncontroversial....apparently they're all free and we don't need taxes to pay for them at all.

#115 IRS: Ah, yes, the old, idiotic "It would do away with the IRS" crap. Because, obviously, these magical sales taxes would just sort of collect themselves, and the paperwork involved would magically file and index itself.

Geez. What a load of dung.

"The above comment by Arizona is either trollish, stupid or both..." ~Chris

I cast my vote for "Intensely Stupid"

Indeed Indy.

You know what would be fair and eliminate bureaucracy is... not a "flat tax rate" but a "flat tax."

We know the total national income figure (GDP or whatever), divide it by the adult population number (from the latest census figure.) That's everyone's fair flat tax. So simple. And so much sanity. Even my dot brain can appreciate it.

I am for taxing the hell out of the rich.

And taxing the hell out of corporations, big business; and people who support reducing taxes for the aforementioned entities.

Why is it only republicans that make only slightly more than average cannot grasp the idea that reducing taxes for the wealthy does not apply to them and is not in their personal interests?

A flat tax is very regressive.

Say the tax rate was 20 percent. A 20 percent tax would hit a person making $25,000 a year far, far harder than it would hit a person making $250,000 a year. The burden (hardship; ability to pay for food and shelter) of a flat tax would be much more unequal than taxes are now, when at least we still have some progressivity in tax rates left. The poor would pay a higher tax rate than currently, and the rich would pay a lower rate. Isn't that special.

Enjoy the Bush McCain tax cuts to the wealthy.

"Exxon Mobil turns biggest US quarterly profit

By JOHN PORRETTO – 11 hours ago

HOUSTON (AP) — Exxon Mobil reported the fattest operating profit in U.S. corporate history Thursday but took a beating anyway — from politicians railing against Big Oil, drivers bleeding cash at the pump and investors who expected more.

The world's largest publicly traded oil company turned a profit of $11.7 billion for the second quarter, lifted mostly by meteoric crude prices. Its earnings were up 14 percent from a year ago.

Total sales: $138 billion — roughly the gross domestic product of Hungary."

I favor the flat tax because it is so much like the earth, such as, in Eye-Rack(a.k.a. Iraq to the rest of you sane ones), and such as, in South Africa, because Americans in, such as, Eye-Rack, and, such as, South Africa, America, would then not need a round map but could use, like, a map that is flat, like a flat tax, and eliminate Departments, such as, Geography, and Round Mapery, and such as, the IRS (It's Round Stupid) would not be necessary.

Why all this "ongoing mass confusion"? Because, people are like falling off the earth because it is round, such as, like Trent Lott's head, which is filled with pork, that the Eye-Racky Americans could be using to feed like all the poor Muslims and end hunger in the World as we know it. AMEN!

Those who view the flat tax as being fair, are deluded.

Why does Steve Forbes (Forbes on Fox) love the flat tax?

Oh, that's right. It's because he's freakin' rich as Midas, all inherited, and the flat tax means his minimum wage janitor will pay the exact same proportion of income in taxes as his fat ass. Which is of course perfectly fair; both of them benefit just as much from our munificent, just and perfect economy.

I remember when those damn Dems foiled the Republican idealists. The noble Republicans controlled the House, the Senate, and the Presidency a few years ago. But we didn't get a flat tax - in fact, we got bigger and bigger deficits.

Damn Dems.

#129 g2

You make an important point.

Any "complexity" in filing your income tax is self-inflicted, in that we all make the decision to (for example) itemize deductions. Similarly, if I create an S-corporation, I do so voluntarily.
The rules for itemizing (or for S-corporations) are described quite fully in IRS publications, and the folks at your local IRS office are more than willing to help you (in my experience). The rules do not change drastically from one year to the next, and can't be blamed if I run afoul of them.

Another important point is that the actual tax computation (different marginal rates for different levels of income) is not very complex at all! That is, the argument that we need a "flat tax" to reduce complexity is specious. We can have a simplified tax code and still retain the graduated/progressive tax schedule. I will not shed a tear if Steve Forbes has to spend an extra four minutes computing his tax because he's in the 45% bracket.

#124 Irvine

Obama just launched his proposal for an emergency economic relief plan taking by on the Big Oil, and offering a stimulation package to struggling Americans and bailing out the state governments that are facing crucial budget deficits.

And Walmart, which overwhelmingly supports the Republicans with their corporate money tries to intimidate its employees by warning them of an Obama victory, by distorting Obama's plans which are modeled to bring fairness to workers and discourage corporate greed in the process.

Now that's an evidence for some real change we can believe in.

Well, I am not really sure who is stupid here, but a flat rate would insure the fact that the truly rich would truly pay a tax instead of being able to find the means to avoid it. For years, the news media would inform us as to why men like Hunt could pay no taxes at all, despite the fact that he is one of the richest men in America. A flat tax would at least collect some funds from such a man.

And as I understood it at the time, the flat tax would be adjusted according to the income level, being probably progressively raised for high income levels as compared to none at all for those whose income is below $10,000.

But it is interesting to see how individuals register their responses to such a great solution to a serious problem.

Meow meow meow! The jealous of the rich really make their voices heard. When you were students in a classroom drawing only c's and d's were you also so jealous of your class valedictorian?

"The jealous of the rich really make their voices heard. When you were students in a classroom drawing only c's and d's were you also so jealous of your class valedictorian?"

Keep trying. You still get an F for your effort.

____

Reading the comments in this thread... a couple of posters... is exactly why I'm against home schooling.

____

Interesting comments everyone on taxes.

I am for radical tax simplification.

The so-called flat tax is regressive. Even with relatively high exclusions, it is not a good idea.

On the other hand, our current tax code, filled with complex loopholes, is a make-work program for accountants and tax lawyers and contains huge hidden give-aways to special interests.

I would like to see simplification. Do away with all deductions and credits except for the dependent child and mortgage interest deduction. I favor keeping the dependent child deduction because I do think that families with dependent children should have their higher expenses recognized. I favor keeping the mortgage interest deduction because removing it would radically disrupt housing prices, but I'd like to see it phased out over time.

There is no reason why such a concept needs to be paired with a flat tax. Keep the progressive rates.

Obviously details of exactly how big the deductions are and what the rates would be at what income levels would need to be worked out. This is a concept, not a well thought out proposal.