Obama's Electrifying Speech

If you're wondering what all the fuss about Barack Obama is, take a little break right now and watch this video. I can't imagine anyone not being moved by this speech and this man's vision for transforming our nation into a true reflection of our highest and noblest ideals. In case you were wondering, yes, I am officially endorsing Barack Obama as the Peace Meme candidate.

Obama-Lerner, 2008!

Comments

[marks]

OK, yeah, I agree that Obama has a great vision for this country, and he is a WONDERFUL speaker, but until I hear his specific policy positions on a number of issues I can't simply endorse the man. It's like signing a blank check.

Specifically, what would he do about health care, global warming, reducing dependence on foreign oil, the imminent collapse of Ford Motor Co., immigration, gay marriage, the Patriot Act, No Child Left Behind, CEO accountability & salaries, North Korea, Iran, Darfur, trade policy, balancing the budget, Israel & Palestine, etc etc etc.

I agree with and applaud his attempt to find bipartisan solutions to problems, but I also want to know who I'm voting for.
Can he take a stand on an issue and defend it? If not, he may have trouble during the debates.

History has also shown that Outsiders with Good Intentions can get clobbered if they don't have the ability to work with Washington Insiders (see Jimmy Carter). In this sense, Obama's lack of Washington experience is both an advantage AND a disadvantage.

Don't get me wrong. I LIKE Obama, and if he were the eventual nominee, I would probably vote for him. But I also liked Howard Dean, who was one of the first to say NO to Bush's Iraq policy, but he made some amateurish mistakes and got slaughtered. Another candidate I liked, Gary Hart, got killed because he too lacked specifics for his "new ideas" (remember "Where's the Beef?") I don't want to see the same thing happen to Obama, but at this point, who knows?

Let's hear what he has to say...

[JC Shakespeare]

Fair enough, Tomas; a good place to start is his book, The Audacity of Hope. That will give you an excellent picture of "who you're voting for."

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0307237699/peamem-20

He has an impressive and well-organized guide to his voting record (what he HAS done) and details on his plans (what he WILL do) on his website. It's clear, it's specific, it's planned. Check it out here:

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

Do some homework, and let me know what you think. I think he's the real deal.

[rayleus]

Dean and Hart are good examples of outsiders getting the old pre-emptive media blitz attack. Candidates can limit their exposure, but everyone does something that's emarassing and can be used against them when the need arises. Murdering people in cold blood is always a last resort tactic utilized by the well-entrenched.
I wouldn't consider Carter so much of an outsider, considering that he was groomed and promoted to the position of "replacement candidate" by David Rockefeller. Considering that the Rockefellers pulled Nixon out of obscurity in order to defeat incumbent Jerry Voorhis (who coincidentally happened to be working diligently to abolish the Federal Reserve system), considering Nixon worked as a Rockefeller family lawyer during his "quiet" years between 60 and 68, and considering his quid pro quo buddy Ford annointed Nelson Rockefeller the post of Vice President (a heartbeat away from the presidency, as they say), it can hardly be argued that Rockefeller protege Carter was a true "outsider." But surely, he was meant to put a fresh ousider face on the old banker cartel power structure. Controlling both sides of the political spectrum is the key to the ruling elite's predominance. I like Obama a lot, but would not at all be surprised to see Hillary or some other Trilateral Commission/Council on Foreign Relations upstart to catch the lucky breaks and the Democratic nomination. Obama support will have to be overwhelming to succeed. If we really want this we have to work hard and start now.

[rayleus]

Don't mean to diss Carter - he's done many great things, and I agree his presidency was sabotaged. But it's interesting to note that he was so beholden to David Rockefeller that he granted the Shah of Iran asylum against his own will and better judgment - a horrible "adding insult to injury" act. Something worth considering as we sit here today and watch Iranian's yelling "death to America" in the streets of Tehran.

Let's see, we overthrew Mossadegh and the Iranian Democracy. We re-installed and protected the Shah, who was a brutal, totalitarian, terroristic dictator. We supported the Shah's unacceptable regime, which is directly credited as the cause of the Islamic Revolution. We granted the Shah asylum when the people of Iran were finally strong enough to oust him. We armed Saddam Houssein and even gave him chemical weapons to keep their country under attack through a proxy war over a period of years.

And we stand back and say "Gee, what the hell is their problem? Why do they hate us? The only possible explanation is that they are crazy nut-case religious psychopaths." What would we have done to them if the situation were reversed? Can anyone deny the right to say that we should leave them the hell alone?

Meanwhile, we live in a country that supposedly follows (to a great degree) a Savior who taught that "The love of money [of which oil is one form of] is the root of all evil"? Too bad we don't pay more attention to him.

I'm not advocating we lay down in the street and let them run over us, but it certainly wouldn't hurt to bring a little contrition with us to the negotiation table.

[marks]

Rayleus:

Your logic on Carter escapes me. Rockefeller was Ford's VP, but then, according to you, the Rockefellers supported Carter, who then DEFEATED Ford and Dole in the 1976 election. Why would the Rockefellers try to defeat a fellow Republican? Especially in favor of a Democrat?

I still say Carter was an outsider in the sense that even though he was a Democaratic president, he couldn't get a lot of his legislation passed through a Democratic Congress. He suffered for lack of broad-based support.

[marks]

Shake:

Thanks for the link to the campaign blurbs about Obama's policy positions. I promise to look them over carefully.

However, the section I did look at -- Health Care -- seemed a little "thin" and still avoids the main question: how can we provide affordable health care to all?

Again, I LIKE this guy. I think he would be a good candidate and a good president. He is well-positioned with his themes of integrity, peace, bipartisanship and faith. This is why I want him to make the best case possible, in order to counter his lack of experience. He also needs to be ready for when The Other Side throws everything they have against him. For example, when John McCain runs the inevitable ad that "a vote for Hussain Obama is a vote for a coke-sniffing peacenik," I hope (audaciously) that there will be enough substance to Obama's candidacy that the Democrats don't immediately lose the South and the West. We also need to know if they are any skeletons in his closet. Are there any bimbo eruptions? How deep was the drug use? Are his wife's money connections squeaky clean? (Chicago is not known for the cleanliness of its politics). I guess I'm just tired of falling in love with these guys only to have my hopes dashed, like a jilted bride, on Election Day. The Democrats MUST win in 2008, and we need the best candidate possible to do this. I hope Obama is the one.

So, it's WAY too early for me to make up my mind. I first want to see how well they all do in the debates. Much can happen in the next 11 months...

[rayleus]

Great observations about the "road to the White House." Idealist that I am, I can't deny the fact that success in politics depends on pragmatism - working effectively towards attainable goals.

My Carter comments were to undescore the fact that the banking cartel influence extends heavily into both parties. They don't put all their eggs in one basket. For example, Carter was Plan B. If they can't have their first choice, they want to be sure that the second choice is someone they have their hooks in as well, or at least someone who is going to "play ball" for the most part. The actual Rockefeller/Carter connection is extensive and I can pull together some of the specifics for you. I agree he was stymied to a great degree, something that might be explained by the manner in which he sought to deviate from the "script" prepared for him.

But like Carter, Clinton was also a small-state Governor from the South. But through his Trilateral Commission connections he was not really an outsider per se.

There's a lot of factors at play in whether someone like Obama will have enough support to accomplish his goals. There's probably some inverse ratio at work - the more someone truly wants to help the common people at the expense of dimishing the rate of ever-expanding wealth of the elite, the more extensive and widespread that person's grassroots support needs to be.

I agree it's essential we get a Democratic president in 08. It will probaby be essential just due to the need to rebuild relations around the world. But what we really need, whether Democratic or Republican, or someone who is dedicated to implementing real solutions to the issues you raised earlier in the thread. We need to get back to a Roosevelt style jobs plan and turn this country back into a producer and exporter (of something other than violence of course).

Not only is the road to the White House littered with the land mines of political "gotchas", but it's also a road full of surprises, so there's no telling how steam a candidate may pick up. I think this is the time to be an idealist and support the candidate whose platform and outlook we most agree with. After all, if they don't win the nomination, our efforts will have helped ensure that the party listens to and incorporates more of those ideals then they would have otherwise. Hell, the Republicans might even have to adapt.

[marks]

Rayleus:

Well said.

[jcs]

Tom, (and everyone else, for that matter),

Please read Arianna Huffington's post today on "Where's the Beef?" She addresses this issue squarely.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/wheres-the-beef-ii-t_b_41054.html

[marks]

OK-

I read the Huffington piece, and I read Obama's plan to end the war, and I STILL say: IT'S NOT ENOUGH!

The "plan" calls for reducing troops and a phased withdrawal. OK, so far, so good.

But it also calls for the Iraqi government to "make progress in forming political solutions." What does THAT mean? If the US pulls out, the likeliest political solution is for the strongest faction to win the civil war.

The other point, "improve reconstruction to restore basic services in Iraq" is equally impossible. NOBODY can do this until security has been established in Iraq; terrorist are targeting anyway who tries this.

So, again, I think this "plan" is a little thin, and somewhat unrealistic. What I want to see is a plan for what to do when things go terribly wrong in Iraq, which is probably what will happen when we pull out. (And probably what will happen if we stay.)

[Jason]

There is no perfect plan for pulling out of Iraq; because there is absolutely no way that this will end well. Americans do not have the stomach to solve the problem, to which I say thank God, because the solution is to rule as Saddam did: ruthlessly. He murdered without regard to ethnicity, because he knew how to rule Iraq. The only question is how many Americans will die in Iraq while our "leadership" tries to figure this out.

It is time to get out and stop asking for a perfect and detailed solution. Barrack will get our poor men and women out as carefully as possible, but deliberately nonetheless. Please stop asking for a comprehensive plan that will restore order to Iraq and bring our troops home. There is not one, at least not one that Americans are willing to implement.

[marks]

Jason:

While I agree with you that the U.S. should pull out of Iraq, I disagree that we do not need a comprehensive plan for the withdrawal and for Iraq.

Instead, I would argue that it was the lack of such a plan following the defeat of the Iraqi forces in April 2003 that caused a lot of the problems that we find today. We know why this is: Rumsfeld refused to allow thoughtful consideration of what would happen after Saddam fell, and many mistakes were made as a result.

I think it is INSANE to consider any large political and/or military mission WITHOUT a detailed comprehensive plan, as well as a fallback plan for what to do if things go wrong. Simply pulling out without considering all of the potential problems that may occur because of that pullout, and without planning for how to deal with them when/if they arise, seems rash to me, and slightly irresponsible.

Pulling out will not solve all of Iraq's problems, nor will it grant us immunity from them. There is a great danger that the civil war that is now occurring in Iraq could spread, and we could be drawn in or affected again.

I also feel that we as a country have a collective responsiblity for the mess we made over there; a lot of innocent people are dying and are without basic services. We do share some of the responsibility for that.

Finally, what is wrong with Planning? Why is asking a candidate to provide a detailed plan so unreasonable? Why shouldn't a junior senator from Illinois with two years of Washington experience be challenged to show how he would handle the most difficult questions facing us today? Isn't that what the nomination process is all about?

[marks]

Here's a question for Obama about Darfur.

I appreciate that he is urging for the genocide to stop and is trying to raise awareness about the problem by visiting the area. But the key question is this:

Would he send U.S. troops to Darfur to act as a peacekeeping force? Would he go to the U.N. and ask them to send a force, with U.S. support?

If he doesn't plan to send troops, then what steps will he take to get the violence to stop? Economic sanctions? Or...?

[marks]

Barack's Ideas

I just finished reading Barack's website. There are a lot of really good ideas (I especially liked the one about increasing teacher pay), and overall, I think I can categorically say that we are definitely on the same page philosophically. He is a strong candidate, and I can see myself voting for him.

Which makes all the fuss about how-dare-you-question-him-about-details-and-experience seem kind of, well, STRANGE.

If I have a question, I'm gonna ask it, and I'm sure he'll survive.

Anyway...
QUESTION AUTHORITY!

[rayleus]

On the Iraqi withdrawal issue, it is imperative that we recognize exactly what has led us to this point - and contrary to what many would have us believe, it is not the so-called inherent barbarism of the Iraqi people.

Numerous military commanders, including commander of CENTCOM, General Tommy Franks (who helped plan and execute the initial invasion) and General Jay Garner insisted that in order to maintain civil order in Iraq it was essential that they be given Iraqi army and other Baath party infrastructure institutions placed under their control. Using previously trained institutions in the reconstruction of a defeated nation is what America has done in previous wars. Many pundits have belly-ached that the anti-Bush/Cheney people are not acknowledging that Iraq reconstruction will take time and our ongoing occupation like in Germany and Japan after WWII. However, they consistently fail to point out that Bremer and Feith (darlings of the corporate/banking cartel) ignored the dire warnings of the career military leaders by issuing the de-Baathification order and disbanding the Iraqi military. The order instantly made hundreds of thousands of rank-and-file (not Saddam inner circle folks, mind you) immediately unemployed and banned from future government employment. By some estimates, we went to bed one night and awoke the next with over 300,000 new enemies (plus their family members!) with nowhere to go and nothing to do - except focus on payback.

General Frank had warned that if Bremer did this it would take 10 years to fix Iraq. General Frank was so outraged that he called Feith the "dumbest bastard on the face of the earth." This brings us round againt to that ultimate question: stupidity or conscious evil under the cloak of stupidity? Considering that Henry Kissinger, George Schultz and other highly placed old-school members of the elite are known to meet with Bush and Cheney regularly, it can hardly be argued that this Administration is just flailing around with a cast of inept mismanagers who think they know more than the real experts. No one can get me to believe that.

By sowing violence and discord in Iraq we are able to justify our military presence there for years to come - and by this "happy accident" we fulfill the most important strategic goal set forth by PNAC (Wolfowitz, Rumsfield, et al) before the 200 election debacle even took place (what to speak of 9/11). We also get the justification for saying Iraq can never be stable as a unified country and it must therefore be carved up - but this is extremely tricky.

Turkey obviously never wanted a carve up as it would inevitably create a Kurdish state and would likely lead to an attempt by the Kurds to capture part of eastern Turkey. And of course due to the concentration of oil in certain geographical locations of Iraq, a Sunni/Shia division of land will never be acceptable to both sides, and could likely create a far worse scenario than the Pakistani/India carve-out. Meanwhile, Iran sits next door intent on not being checkmated and with the clout, and positioning to hinder our movements. Somebody needs to tell Brzezinski (note: a plant inside the "outsider" Carter administration) that he needs to take another look at his "Grand Chessboard." (check out his book The Grand Chessboard - a major inspiration for PNAC)

Rest assured, no solution for Iraq will be decided or debated (except perhaps in the made-for-tv-debates) on the basis of what's best for the Iraqi people. We will only do what's best for the U.S. and try to cloak it in terms of what's best for Iraq.

I believe there is a serious and real power-struggle going on at this moment as powerful elite forces are trying to wrest away control from the Frankenstein monster Cheney that they helped create - but it is also a move to save face and try to maintain as much control over the next phase while trying to give the appearance of a "fresh face" (a kindler, gentler U.S. gov). The Baker/Hamilton move to promote engagement of Iran and Syria in talks and the whole rest of their report, is meant to try to point us in a new direction. Unfortunately, their plan probably does have some of the best ideas on the table for the current situation, even for those who fuly acknowledge that it we should never have gotten into this unforgiveable position to begin with.

As for the assumption that Iraq will slide into further, uncontrollable chaos if we pull out entirely, I question that. I dont' see it as a given. We certainly lost the window of opportunity to do the withdrawal prior to the outbreak of insanity. To me, because of all the damage we've done, we have a duty to rectify the situation, but the first step to me is crystal clear: ask, no beg, any and every other nation willing to help to come in and: 1) help maintain civil order; 2) immediately rebuild the important infrastructure, restore the economy and create a jobs plan that gets the people working again. The problem here is that the u.s corporate leviathan looks at iraq as a huge investment with major returns for the future, and they don't want to share that pie with others.

It's a tall order, but it's undeniable that our go-it-alone attitude (coalition of the "willing" notwithstanding) and our continued unilateral presence there IS THE PRIMARY, IF NOT SOLE, PROBLEM. Of course, the Cheney crowd, and his impotent press agent Bush, are hell-bent on starting World War III and invading Iran, so perhaps restoring order to Iraq can't be our number one priority at the moment. Saving the world from these out-of-control maniacs has got to be our first priority.