Neither candidate have a clue. America is finished!

Where is Ralph Nader or Ron Paul to call these guys out on their National Defense mythology they are both espousing!?

There both have literally the same platforms. More spending with what money?

I think Obama has to tread much more carefully on Iran than McCain. Having lived in a Muslim country everyone is watching him closely, especially evangelical Christians and the Jewish vote. Look at how Dean was excoriated for even talking about dealing with Israel with an even hand.

But having live in a Muslim he's a lot less likely to demonize them than is popular these days. I would expect once in office he'll be a lot more driven by facts than rhetoric.

Josh @ 1:

Neither candidate have a clue. America is finished!

Where is Ralph Nader or Ron Paul to call these guys out on their National Defense mythology they are both espousing!?

There both have literally the same platforms. More spending with what money?

I get email from Nader several times a day. He's all over it. He just isn't given the same exposure. Nader is calling them on ALL OF THEIR SHIT, day and night.

It must be political suicide to stray from the line we’ve been hearing, or we’d be hearing something different.

More like *real* suicide to stray from the AIPAC line.

I console myself with he HAS to say this crap - now. I still have "hope" that once he's in office he can back it down a couple of notches.

mudshark @ 6:

If he says anything else, he'll be painted as a pussy. Not willing to defend the country. This is a smart play on his part.He also says he wants to converse with ALL nations. And by that he means preconditions must be met first. Anyone who says otherwise is full of Crappola.

Huh?
He means preconditions must be met first? That's the exact opposite of what I understood his position to be...

Different Anonymous @ 7:

It must be political suicide to stray from the line we’ve been hearing, or we’d be hearing something different.

More like *real* suicide to stray from the AIPAC line.

I console myself with he HAS to say this crap - now. I still have "hope" that once he's in office he can back it down a couple of notches.

Yeah, that's kind of what I'm hoping the reason is..

I really hope we can ditch these AIPAC clowns once and for all, and soon...

I thought it sucked too. Even Colin Powell is saying the MSM line about Russia being unprovoked is dangerous bullshit. We are thinking of taking our savings and leaving. it is the only way to avoid paying for their recklessness.

I don't know whether Obama is "playing it smart" by appearing to buy into these hawkish positions on Iran (and Afghanistan) or whether he's actually convinced that Iran IS pursuing nuclear weapons (and more troops will make a difference in Afghanistan).

Either way it is troubling.

I hope that once elected and actually dealing with reality on a day-to-day basis, Obama's positions will change to reflect that reality.

I'm certain McCain's wouldn't.

I noticed that too, Cernig. I'm not reassured. All of the rhetoric was right wing fantasy. Especially about Russia. Maybe Obama's just playing along so the neocons can't pounce. Probably. That crap about who sucks Henry Kissinger's dick the best was over the top, though. Used to be he was just Tricky Dick's friend. My, how the facts have mellowed with age.

"Last night, John McCain and Barack Obama put Iran firmly back in the “Axis of Evil” as far as future US policy is concerned..."

Fucking disturbing. Why I was never excited about anyone running. I mean the best guy the 'Good' guys can find continues with the same inflammatory "Let's make War REAL!" rhetoric.

This kind of TALK is totally fucked up and drags us further down, and signals the rest of the world we really don't want to change, or we have no ideas on how to do it -- we'll just keep doing the Same Old Shit and hope some bullshit changes just enough to flip everything into perfection! thus allowing us to have our cake and eat it too.
We can't STAND suffering for ourselves, but have no compunction as to our involvement in sticking it on others -- so that we may luxuriate.

This is not a road I want to continue to travel.

Eric Hussein in Ottawa @ 9:

mudshark @ 6:

If he says anything else, he'll be painted as a pussy. Not willing to defend the country. This is a smart play on his part.He also says he wants to converse with ALL nations. And by that he means preconditions must be met first. Anyone who says otherwise is full of Crappola.

Huh?
He means preconditions must be met first? That's the exact opposite of what I understood his position to be...

Yeah. By preconditions, I believe him to mean that a certain criteria should be met in a diplomatic format. Low level first, and build from there. I do not believe he means that he will meet with anyone with out prior conditions or low level meetings first.
Of Course this will vary with regards to countries like the UK and other allies. As for countries like Iran, Syria and the like(NK) there would be lower lever meetings to build on. That's a no brainer to me. What he means, is to reinstate Diplomacy. And to go through diplomatic channels.
Remember when we did that?

Alice X - (Click Here for Nader Debate What If) - status quObama - change you can pretend in - @ 14:

Every since WWII this country has experienced ongoing propaganda to vilify the enemies of the Corporations that control the country.

Just in case they need to send in the Marines.

Surprise! A standing Army brigade is coming back to Consumerville. "Crowd control". They're going to protect us. Passports anyone?

MountainMan23 @ 15:

I don't know whether Obama is "playing it smart" by appearing to buy into these hawkish positions on Iran (and Afghanistan) or whether he's actually convinced that Iran IS pursuing nuclear weapons .

What are you talking about?

Everyone in the world acknowledges Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons, including Iran.

I still think a lot of you are being naive: why did Obama agree with McCain on this issue? Because doing so takes it right out of McCain's hands. McCain wants to show that he's tougher and more experienced on foreign policy than is Obama. If Obama had said anything else, the election narrative would have refocused from the ghastly domestic situation to the story McCain prefers - tough soldier schools inexperienced upstart.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think Obama is a stealth progressive who will turn into every Leftist's dream candidate after inauguration day. But I'm also aware that he's smart, and he's a pragmatist, and that snatching one of McCain's biggest foreign policy bludgeons out of his hands before he has a chance to use it is a step that will keep the focus on the domestic issues that will get Obama elected.

I understand that progressives are so used to disappointment that we're totally cynical at this point. But I don't think it serves anyone to be second-guessing Obama's strategy without taking into account that he doesn't have to win you or I over, he has to win over the vast swath of Middle America that is nervous about him.

Eric Hussein in Ottawa @ 26:

mudshark @ 21:

Eric Hussein in Ottawa @ 9:

mudshark @ 6:

Huh?
He means preconditions must be met first? That's the exact opposite of what I understood his position to be...

Yeah. By preconditions, I believe him to mean that a certain criteria should be met in a diplomatic format. Low level first, and build from there. I do not believe he means that he will meet with anyone with out prior conditions or low level meetings first.
Of Course this will vary with regards to countries like the UK and other allies. As for countries like Iran, Syria and the like(NK) there would be lower lever meetings to build on. That's a no brainer to me. What he means, is to reinstate Diplomacy. And to go through diplomatic channels.
Remember when we did that?

Ok, fair enough.
But the Bush administration said they didn't even want to go that far....but they did, didn't they? I read reports that meetings were held in secret between lower level officials.

In that case, there's very little difference between the two. One would CLAIM not to meet without preconditions, while doing so anyway behind the scenes. The other would simply be more up front about how these talks are conducted.

Yeah?

And by preconditions, I'm referring to something else, like compliance to some external demands that need not be met, legally.

Obama has to please the Hawks until he gets into office, then he can dial it down.

Eric Hussein in Ottawa @ 26:

mudshark @ 21:

Eric Hussein in Ottawa @ 9:

mudshark @ 6:

Huh?
He means preconditions must be met first? That's the exact opposite of what I understood his position to be...

Yeah. By preconditions, I believe him to mean that a certain criteria should be met in a diplomatic format. Low level first, and build from there. I do not believe he means that he will meet with anyone with out prior conditions or low level meetings first.
Of Course this will vary with regards to countries like the UK and other allies. As for countries like Iran, Syria and the like(NK) there would be lower lever meetings to build on. That's a no brainer to me. What he means, is to reinstate Diplomacy. And to go through diplomatic channels.
Remember when we did that?

Ok, fair enough.
But the Bush administration said they didn't even want to go that far....but they did, didn't they? I read reports that meetings were held in secret between lower level officials.

In that case, there's very little difference between the two. One would CLAIM not to meet without preconditions, while doing so anyway behind the scenes. The other would simply be more up front about how these talks are conducted.

Yeah?

Ok, One said he wouldn't negotiate. And look how that turned out. Then he negotiated,and almost accomplished something,until he broke his word.(NK). Bush didn't conduct relations with any of these countries until it became obvious that it was politically the best thing to do..
Obama on the other hand has a functioning plan. And he's willing . I see a big difference between the two.

I hope for all of our sake that he is pandering to the hawks, and will in fact dial it down when/if he gets elected.

From what I saw last night, Obama is pretty much 100% on track with Bush's current foreign policy, and to me that is very alarming.

mudshark @ 33:

Eric Hussein in Ottawa @ 26:

mudshark @ 21:

Eric Hussein in Ottawa @ 9:
Yeah. By preconditions, I believe him to mean that a certain criteria should be met in a diplomatic format. Low level first, and build from there. I do not believe he means that he will meet with anyone with out prior conditions or low level meetings first.
Of Course this will vary with regards to countries like the UK and other allies. As for countries like Iran, Syria and the like(NK) there would be lower lever meetings to build on. That's a no brainer to me. What he means, is to reinstate Diplomacy. And to go through diplomatic channels.
Remember when we did that?

Ok, fair enough.
But the Bush administration said they didn't even want to go that far....but they did, didn't they? I read reports that meetings were held in secret between lower level officials.

In that case, there's very little difference between the two. One would CLAIM not to meet without preconditions, while doing so anyway behind the scenes. The other would simply be more up front about how these talks are conducted.

Yeah?

Ok, One said he wouldn't negotiate. And look how that turned out. Then he negotiated,and almost accomplished something,until he broke his word.(NK). Bush didn't conduct relations with any of these countries until it became obvious that it was politically the best thing to do..
Obama on the other hand has a functioning plan. And he's willing . I see a big difference between the two.

Ok, I understand what you were saying now.
I agree with you.

Jose @ 25:

MountainMan23 @ 15:

I don't know whether Obama is "playing it smart" by appearing to buy into these hawkish positions on Iran (and Afghanistan) or whether he's actually convinced that Iran IS pursuing nuclear weapons .

What are you talking about?

Everyone in the world acknowledges Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons, including Iran.

How the hell did I end up on Mars?!

I'm hoping that Obama is just treading lightly and avoiding a neocon onslaught.

I fear the same-old same-old.

Oh well, if it is the same-old, by the 2012 election the SCOTUS should be stable = no additional fascists.

Then I go back to voting Socialist.( void where prohibited)

Eric Hussein in Ottawa @ 29:

Eric Hussein in Ottawa @ 26:

mudshark @ 21:

Eric Hussein in Ottawa @ 9:
Yeah. By preconditions, I believe him to mean that a certain criteria should be met in a diplomatic format. Low level first, and build from there. I do not believe he means that he will meet with anyone with out prior conditions or low level meetings first.
Of Course this will vary with regards to countries like the UK and other allies. As for countries like Iran, Syria and the like(NK) there would be lower lever meetings to build on. That's a no brainer to me. What he means, is to reinstate Diplomacy. And to go through diplomatic channels.
Remember when we did that?

Ok, fair enough.
But the Bush administration said they didn't even want to go that far....but they did, didn't they? I read reports that meetings were held in secret between lower level officials.

In that case, there's very little difference between the two. One would CLAIM not to meet without preconditions, while doing so anyway behind the scenes. The other would simply be more up front about how these talks are conducted.

Yeah?

And by preconditions, I'm referring to something else, like compliance to some external demands that need not be met, legally.

That's what the GOP want you to see.
The US doesn't comply to external demands. At least not out in the open. Reagan did. Iran hostages. Other than that, I can't think of any others.
As for Obama doing that. That's not my take on it..

Gary @ 32:

The republican guard of Iran is a terrorist organization? Oh puh-lease.

The zionist in Obama really came out last night.

funny....most jews dont trust him

guess he must be doing something right

and i wish you idiots would stop throwing around the term "zionist" to anyone who supports the state of israel and its right to exist

maybe it has been our closest ally in the mideast for over 50 years....ever think about that?

Shelly in North CA @ 38:

I concur with the above comments. My disappointment is in my very slow acceptance (confirmed last night) that Obama is not, and most likely will never be, progressive.

As a fully paid up bitter, paranoid holdout, I have never understood how a progressive movement could be built by a campaign that leveraged misogyny. In fact, it can't.

Let's recap:

Obama thinks Russia is a problem.
Obama states that America can't allow Iran to use nuclear power.
Obama believes Pakistan must be dealt with.
Obama believes the war in Afghanistan is necessary.

Is he not just like Bush?

for obama to do a complete opposite regarding iran
after yrs. of ongoing propaganda....not an easy stance
to take during a time of war(s). the spin from the powerful right/BUSH would paint obama as weak
therefore instill fear in the vulnerable public. i'm
personally not sure but i do wonder if iran has some
reasons for concern when u.s. troops are on their
borders and probably within their country.

I'm sure that there are a lot of things that have to be said to be elected. Obama has to appear to bend to the right to be elected. When he does get facts from the intelligence agencies he can revise his approach to stop the invasions. Right now, he has to play up to the MSM and the false reports of threats from Iran.

I can understand concern but, I can't understand the whining. We told Graham that we are not a nation of whiners and some are out there trying to prove us wrong.

I don't understand - Nader is on the ballot in 45 states. Why is he not allowed to debate?!

What a bullshit Democracy this is...

Jordan @ 31:

Obama has to please the Hawks until he gets into office, then he can dial it down.

I don't think so. As soon as he gets into office, he is thinking about re-election, so he has to keep pandering to the same lobbies he needed to get elected in the first place. No-one dares piss off AIPAC till they don't have to worry about re-election. Then you get the big push for a peace deal, right at the end of the second Presidential term, when there really isn't time to finish the deal. Think Camp David for Clinton, or Annapolis for Bush II. It's an insane way for the most powerful nation on earth to deal with one of its most pressing - if not the most pressing - foreign policy issues, but it's the way we do it.

Barack Obama missed a golden opportunity last night and he should have challenged the false claim that John McCain made about his support of veterans. John McCain's voting record does not support the claim that he made without a challenge.

AIPAC is famous for putting out large amounts of money to defeat politicians they don't like, no matter where in the nation the politician is campaigning.

But yes, it's the Second Comer Christian's that are really radical about Israeli policy. They're the ones that stopped the roadmap.

BTW, the Iranian National Guard is on the official terrorist list. A bill was voted through about a year ago. Amazing how such a small country can give a superpower such a hard time. I wonder how the new boogeyman will be?

Uncle Joe Mccarthy @ 40:

chuck @ 30:

With all due respect:

try winning the US Presidency without the support of AIPAC.

Just try it.

And as we all know, there will be no support from the USA's most powerful lobby (bar none) of there is not condemnation of Israel's enemies.

That's just a fact.

funny, it wasnt aipac that just bankrupted a nation

i think you overestimate the power of aipac

and please, look at israel's security since bush has come to power

under clinton's policies, israel was thriving and not one arab or muslim nation was directly threatening their existance....bush changed all that

tell you one thing...allowing the evangelicals another 4 years of influence will cause the middle east to explode

While I agree with your claims about the IEDs and the centrifuges, I think Obama's statements following the Republican Party line on these matters is a brilliant strategy. I even suspect that he doesn't really believe what he's saying.

Its just that if you try to make an issue of the Republican lies about various threat, the Republicans use those lies to paint you as weak. In fact that's the main reason for those lies. It isn't to scare people about Iran as much as it is to ignite denials from the Democrats, which can them be used to scare people about Democrats. Because after all, the public mostly has no clue about centrifuges and IEDs.

By going along or even repeating those lies, Obama is effectively neutralizing the most effective Rovian dirty trick that the Republicans ever had. And he is not going to lose much of the Democratic base. On the other hand, if he allows any whiff of a myth that he is weak, he will lose many of the precious undecideds.

I think that most on the left are misanalyzing the debate. Obama was not talking to the "kick the snort out of McCain" liberals - he was appealing to middle of the road America. So he had a balancing act - look strong and presidential without disparaging McCain. He had also to appeal to the women vote, and by and large based on past debates they dislike what leftist pundits were calling for - "a brawl". Why else do you think the polls show he won?

Albatross @ 48:

Folks, it's not about Progressive versus Conservative anymore. At this point it's about the Rule of Law and the survival of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. If McCain gets into office, America is done as a federalist republic democracy. If Obama gets elected, we MIGHT just see the restoration of the Rule of Law, the end of Signing Statements, the restoration of an impartial judiciary, and possibly the end of American unilateralism. If McCain gets into office, we might just see President Palin and the end of the First Amendment.

Nobody espousing peace, love, veganism, and hemp clothing is going to take the White House. Like it or not, Obama is the best you're going to get. Stop projecting your fantasies onto him and look at him as the last chance for Constitutional American Democracy. That's the best we're going to get, and we'll be lucky if THAT isn't stolen from us, so quit whining like a bunch of rich kids at Christmas who didn't get their BB gun, and be happy we have anyone of Obama's qualifications running for office at all.

exactly........the world of compromise is NOT easy to
accept. obama is campaigning against a very powerful
force BUSH and company. this is strategy by obama.
his intentions is to bring back the constitution,legislative branch,checks and balances and the middleclass. i could be wrong and i understand the confusion. there has been perpetual politicization going on for 8 yrs. there's a lot for obama to overcome.
obama realizes nothing will get done on capitol hill
if we continue the division....he also understands he
will NOT get elected if he doesn't play some populace
politics.

When a candidate shows that much contempt for citizens of other countries, I kind of wonder if they really have the best interests of our own citizens in mind.

Obama won Period. Nobody is just perfect. It is VERY hard to please everyone in this world. John McShame didn't even look Obama in the eye. So I take it you think McShame won the debate Cernig. "You can't please everybody all the time but you can Please somebody most of it". Look I wanted Hillary Clinton as the next President of the United States. That is not happening so I am doing the next best thing and Voting Obama to be the next President of the United States. I don't care about this Axis crap. That is a Republican talking point anyway. Vote McShame get another Bush term. Vote Obama get Change America needs. It's as simple as that. And another thing Cernig. If you don't like Obama STAY HOME....

this is an interesting graphic showing the chronology
of the iranian nuclear program

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/635130b4-4911-11dd-9a5f-000077b07658.html?ncli...

Uncle Joe Mccarthy @ 43:

Gary @ 32:

The republican guard of Iran is a terrorist organization? Oh puh-lease.

The zionist in Obama really came out last night.

funny....most jews dont trust him

guess he must be doing something right

and i wish you idiots would stop throwing around the term "zionist" to anyone who supports the state of israel and its right to exist

maybe it has been our closest ally in the mideast for over 50 years....ever think about that?

It's hardly idiotic to use the word "zionist" to describe someone who expresses support the principles of Zionism and whose views on the Middle East are informed by Zionism. That's just using "zionist" as a regular adjective to describe someone who is well, a Zionist. There's nothing conspiratorial about using the word "Zionist" to describe someone who is a Zionist. (You seem to be reading the derogatory sense into it all by yourself, I can't see it in the comment you are responding to). And seeing as Zionism is the philosophy upon which the state of Israel was founded and currently exists, it's not that idiotic either to equate "zionist" and "a person who supports the state of Israel and its right to exist". Admittedly the two groups aren't necessarily identical, but I think the overlap is substantial enough that equating the two is hardly idiotic.

And as for Israel being our closest ally in the Middle East, well how does that saying go: "Every time anyone says that Israel is our only friend in the Middle East, I can't help but think that before Israel, we had no enemies in the Middle East." So it's not quite as simple as you suggest. Our championing the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine against the wishes of the majority of the existing population in Palestine and throughout the region was always going to be an act that created enemies for us, so saying Israel is an ally when it is our uncritical support of Israel that left us so short of allies in that region, is a bit of circular argument.

purvis ames @ 70:

To all those who think Obama is going to take off his Clark Kent suit and reveal himself as Superman at the inauguration, forget it. The McCain-Obama programs are exactly the same - no single payer health care, more war, more military spending, more bail-outs for the rich. And why shouldn't they be? They're both bought and paid for by the permanent administration. You might as well be voting for the high school president thinking he'll take control of the school system.

can you be more of a drama queen. open your eyes,
ears and brain. don't look at the generalizations look
at the details. BUSH is handing over a huge mess.
don't throw that nader poster away it might be worth
something in the future.

driven989 @ 53:

I don't understand - Nader is on the ballot in 45 states. Why is he not allowed to debate?!

What a bullshit Democracy this is...

because nader is nothing but a shit disturber

go to youtube and watch his debate with triumph the insult dog

triumph kicks that old man's ass

Gary @ 76:

People can call me an anti-semite till the sun goes down, but I don't think its unfair to question the relationship we have with Israel, given the fact AIPAC was one of the leading groups to push for the Iraq war, and they're influential at all levels of our government.

I agree.

The very existence of a lobbying group such as AIPAC strikes me as undemocratic and counter to the interests of the citizens of the United States.

Why should a foreign power wield so much influence in the United States government?

They shouldn't.

Troy @ 69:

Obama won Period. Nobody is just perfect. It is VERY hard to please everyone in this world. John McShame didn't even look Obama in the eye. So I take it you think McShame won the debate Cernig. "You can't please everybody all the time but you can Please somebody most of it". Look I wanted Hillary Clinton as the next President of the United States. That is not happening so I am doing the next best thing and Voting Obama to be the next President of the United States. I don't care about this Axis crap. That is a Republican talking point anyway. Vote McShame get another Bush term. Vote Obama get Change America needs. It's as simple as that. And another thing Cernig. If you don't like Obama STAY HOME....

OK, lemme try this again... 1) I was an Edwards supporter before supporting Obama. 2) HRC is a great, repeat great debater. Period. 3) I think Obama can do better with using facts (see #8 comment above). 4) Whether Obama does better or not in the next 2 debates, he's still got my vote.

Bullwinkle Moose @ 82:

If you believe that Israel would use its missles for anything other than a defensive last resort meassure than you should seek help with your obvious hatred of the only true western democracy in the region.

Just so we're clear, who here suggested that Israel would do that?

Troy @ 69:

Obama won Period. Nobody is just perfect. It is VERY hard to please everyone in this world. John McShame didn't even look Obama in the eye. So I take it you think McShame won the debate Cernig. "You can't please everybody all the time but you can Please somebody most of it". Look I wanted Hillary Clinton as the next President of the United States. That is not happening so I am doing the next best thing and Voting Obama to be the next President of the United States. I don't care about this Axis crap. That is a Republican talking point anyway. Vote McShame get another Bush term. Vote Obama get Change America needs. It's as simple as that. And another thing Cernig. If you don't like Obama STAY HOME....

Interesting rationalization. Barack Obama openly lies about Iran's nuclear program and helps stoke the fires of paranoia, and you say, 'Well, no one is perfect!' This isn't an innocent mistake, though: Obama is repeating the Republican Party's talking-points on Iran simply because trying to argue that Iran isn't a threat and referring to recent studies would be an uphill battle as well as a position that might be made to look 'weak.' So, will hundreds, thousands, or even millions of innocent Iranians die because of this political posturing that Obama refuses to stand against? Perhaps. A lot of Americans don't seem to care all that much that close to a million Iraqis are dead, directly or indirectly, thanks to the actions of George W. Bush. The entire thing makes me sick.

I dreaded coming to work today and reading all the reviews of the debate. What I could stomach of the networks commentaries all seemed designed to level the playing field in a sense, to make Mccain and Obama look the same.

But i thought Obama won. I think he presents the character of a President America has been needing and I think America stands a much better chance of creating a healthy future under the leadership of Obama.

I believe our political system is pretty screwed up and the two parties are heads on one body. Supercapitalism and greed rule the day......................this is a battle of ideologies we are in with Mccain clearly carrying the banner for fascism.

I do get nervous about Obama and Biden and their foreign policy agendas however. But how can people say Mccain was better in that area? He just stood there spouting talking points. And Obama was clear to me in saying "yeah we'll pay for alot of this stuff by taxing the wealthy." It was pretty obvious to me taht was his point. And Lehrer p*ssed me off by suggesting Obama had not answered certain questions when he had. We are here in a battle with a right wing social/economic ideology which is proving incredibly bad for America. The media seems sold on Mccain too but fronts as fair and balanced. My greatest fear is that my fellow citizens are going to fall for this right wing BS.

The Mccain campaign is just one big lie after another. They present as country first but it is all about dogma. And don't mention his first divorce or his recent stands on torture. The Mccain story is irrelevant to who that man now is and what ideology he stands for. Pray Obama wins. He may not be a saint and the democrats are still part of an unhealthy system but we stand absolutely no chance with these right-wing fanatics.

Gary @ 76:

Uncle Joe Mccarthy @ 43:

Gary @ 32:

The republican guard of Iran is a terrorist organization? Oh puh-lease.

The zionist in Obama really came out last night.

funny....most jews dont trust him

guess he must be doing something right

and i wish you idiots would stop throwing around the term "zionist" to anyone who supports the state of israel and its right to exist

maybe it has been our closest ally in the mideast for over 50 years....ever think about that?

Of course most jews don't trust him, he's a hawk, but not near as hawkish as McCain. Lets face it, If Iran had done half the crap Israel had done then we'd of nuked them off the face of the earth by now or they'd of been sanctioned back to the stone age. Just because they're our 'ally' doesn't mean that we need them, or should be supporting them. This country would be far better off with just having diplomatic ties with Israel, rather than basically funding them.

Also, it's hard not to throw around the word zionist. Especially when Obama's very own vice president said the words "I am a zionist, you don't have to be a jew to be a zionist".

People can call me an anti-semite till the sun goes down, but I don't think its unfair to question the relationship we have with Israel, given the fact AIPAC was one of the leading groups to push for the Iraq war, and they're influential at all levels of our government.

do you think that if aipac was against going to war with iraq, that wouldve changed bush's mind?

the idea that one pac pushes the foreign policy of this country is absurd and is on par with believing in the jewish conspiracy

i continue to be shocked at how many on the far left share in the views of those from the far, far, right when it comes to israel and jews

Eric Hussein in Ottawa @ 79:

Gary @ 76:

People can call me an anti-semite till the sun goes down, but I don't think its unfair to question the relationship we have with Israel, given the fact AIPAC was one of the leading groups to push for the Iraq war, and they're influential at all levels of our government.

I agree.

The very existence of a lobbying group such as AIPAC strikes me as undemocratic and counter to the interests of the citizens of the United States.

Why should a foreign power wield so much influence in the United States government?

They shouldn't.

all pacs are undemocratic then

there are lobbying firms for almost every foreign country....or didnt you notice that one of the guys on the mccain campaign was a lobbyist for georgia

[Deleted-Sitemonitor]

Red Headed StepChild @ 86:

The thing about Iran is that perhaps as much as 80% of the Iranian population is NOT happy with the current regime. We need to find a way to contact and support these people, including opposition groups. I'm not talking about military support, I'm just talking about making sure these voices get plenty of access to the media and US politicians. If their voices are heard, Iran can be changed by itself from within.

exactly...and it was another gaffe by the bush administration that led to ahmadinijad's election

the moderates in iran stuck out their hands after 9/11...and bush slapped it away, with his axis of evil speech

Uncle Joe Mccarthy @ 91:

Eric Hussein in Ottawa @ 79:

Gary @ 76:

People can call me an anti-semite till the sun goes down, but I don't think its unfair to question the relationship we have with Israel, given the fact AIPAC was one of the leading groups to push for the Iraq war, and they're influential at all levels of our government.

I agree.

The very existence of a lobbying group such as AIPAC strikes me as undemocratic and counter to the interests of the citizens of the United States.

Why should a foreign power wield so much influence in the United States government?

They shouldn't.

all pacs are undemocratic then

there are lobbying firms for almost every foreign country....or didnt you notice that one of the guys on the mccain campaign was a lobbyist for georgia

[Deleted-Sitemonitor]

excuse me site monitor...i make a salient point, and it gets deleted?

[Deleted. I left your point intact-Sitemonitor]

surf (hussein) jac @ 84:

I would like to believe that the AEC is right about iran. But listening to Ahmadinejad you know he's lying when he says they're not seeking the bomb. He lies about everything else he says with that stupid smile on his face. Tell him Snow is white and he'll say its black. You ask about repression in Iran and he says there isn't. He tells you about free elections and you know that if you have a contrary religious outlook, you ain't running.
yeah, I believe they are looking for the bomb and I have the audacity of hope that President Obama's administration can come to some type of accord with them. Ahmadinejad can go to hell for all I care but I hope we can work something out with the real power in Iran to avoid a confrontation, nuclear or otherwise, with them.

Most Americans look at Iran and think that if they're working on nukes, then it must be us or Israel that might be on the receving end. And while that might be the case, Iran is bordered directly by two states (Afghanistan and Pakistan)- one of those with nukes- whose populations are nearly all Sunni. The Sunni/Shii'a conflict makes the Thirty Years war look like one tick of the second hand.

Then you throw in Sunni Saudi Arabia right across the Persian Gulf, and Russia(nukes), which has tried in the past to invade Iran (read Mahan and you'll see what I'm getting at here). Now add the proximity of Israel (nukes) and US (nukes) military presence in both Iraq and Afghanistan. If you're the President of Iran, whether your liberal or conservative, you might be thinking of adding some nukes to your arsenal just in case.

That's why I suspect Iran might be building a nuclear arms program.

Jose @ 25:

MountainMan23 @ 15:

I don't know whether Obama is "playing it smart" by appearing to buy into these hawkish positions on Iran (and Afghanistan) or whether he's actually convinced that Iran IS pursuing nuclear weapons .

What are you talking about?

Everyone in the world acknowledges Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons, including Iran.

Really? Everyone and their uncle? Why even bother with facts when you can post outright lies, right?

*touch

DonsBlog @ 3:

I think Obama has to tread much more carefully on Iran than McCain. Having lived in a Muslim country everyone is watching him closely, especially evangelical Christians and the Jewish vote. Look at how Dean was excoriated for even talking about dealing with Israel with an even hand.

But having live in a Muslim he's a lot less likely to demonize them than is popular these days. I would expect once in office he'll be a lot more driven by facts than rhetoric.

So what. He lived in an Islamic nation. Big deal. Most likely, he has a better understanding of Islam, which is sorely needed in America.

Iran is the great demon because you've been told it is, since 1979. Pakistan has nuclear weapons, and they're Islamic, and your "ally".

The USA is the only country I know of that is still developing new nuclear weapons, with plans to use them. Your nuclear arsenal is the scariest of the bunch, cuz there are crazies that conjecture on using "limited" nuclear attacks!!!!!!!!!!!!!

MattHughen @ 46:

obama is a triliateral commision guy. mccain has become a neocon hawk. at the heart of either of these doctrines is the fundamental belief that USA must maintain its hegemonic dominance in the world and an unconditional special relationship with isreal. . . they just have different ways of going about the business of imperialism.

we cant vote on wether the USA will be imperialist or not . . . but at this point trilateralism seems a far cry better than the recklessness of neocons.

We as progressives and patriotic Americans must work to end the stranglehold corporate media has on the citizens of this country. Then we can vote for who we really want and put an end to the master - peasant relationship the elites have over this supposedly free country.

Robert1014 @ 104:

Jose @ #25 says: "Everyone in the world acknowledges Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons, including Iran."

Where does Iran admit they're pursuing nuclear weapons? They admit they're pursuing development of nuclear power, which they're entitled to do as signatories to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, but they deny they're pursuing nuclear weapons. Now, as to what they really hope to achieve, well, perhaps they're dissembling, perhaps not; we can't, of course, be certain. However, no evidence we can find suggests they're currently developing nuclear weapons.

And if they did, so what? Could it really make the world MORE dangerous? Too many nations already have nuclear weapons, and NONE can be trusted not to use them if they feel justified in doing so, including America. This idea that a nuclear Iran is "unthinkable" and "intolerable" relies on the meme of Iran as world boogyman, as a uniquely insane and aggressive power. Of course, this is bullshit, pure propaganda. This is not to represent Iran as an idyllic paradise on earth, as no nation is that, but where is the evidence for Iran as an unparalleled danger to the world? In terms of documented aggression around the world, bombs dropped, humans killed, property destroyed, ecosystems despoiled, societies raped, America is top dog. WE'RE the most dangerous nation on earth.

As to the idea that Israel is a peace-loving land of innocents who would never, never use their missles except defensively (or offensively only as a "last resort"), baloney. Israel is a militarized belligerent state, and their treatment of the Palestinians is abhorrent. Their influence on our foreign policy is pernicious and destructive, and unfortunately for us and the world, impossible for us to cast off.

Very well said Robert, but why waste your time on this illiterate?

Uncle Joe Mccarthy @ 43:

Gary @ 32:

The republican guard of Iran is a terrorist organization? Oh puh-lease.

The zionist in Obama really came out last night.

funny....most jews dont trust him

guess he must be doing something right

and i wish you idiots would stop throwing around the term "zionist" to anyone who supports the state of israel and its right to exist

maybe it has been our closest ally in the mideast for over 50 years....ever think about that?

Zionism is an ideology. It's aimed at establishing a nation for Jews only, while it disregards the native population of the land, i.e. the Palestinians.

As a result, Zionism is a racist/bigoted (take your pick) ideology. It's not inclusive, it's not fair, it's not democratic.

Had Israel abandoned Zionism and embraced all other religions, including Christians and Muslims, equally, then perhaps one could refer to it as a "democracy", instead of a "Zionist" state.

[Knock it off with the half truths and lies now. Read this, where it says: "The State of Israel will be open for Jewish immigration and for the Ingathering of the Exiles; it will foster the development of the country for the benefit of all its inhabitants; it will be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel; it will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture; it will safeguard the Holy Places of all religions; and it will be faithful to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations." Thank you. Site Monitor]

It is now clear that Obama is nothing more then a smooth talking Zionist sockpuppet. Anyone that perpetuates the myth of Bin Laden and his CIA/Mossad manufactured entity is a bit player in the theatre.

Erroll @ 80:

Ron @ 51:

I'm sure that there are a lot of things that have to be said to be elected. Obama has to appear to bend to the right to be elected. When he does get facts from the intelligence agencies he can revise his approach to stop the invasions. Right now, he has to play up to the MSM and the false reports of threats from Iran.

I can understand concern but, I can't understand the whining. We told Graham that we are not a nation of whiners and some are out there trying to prove us wrong.

Assuming that what you write is supposed to be taken seriously, stating that "Obama has to appear to bend to the right to be elected" is reminiscent of Richard Nixon, when he claimed in 1968 to have a "secret plan" to end the Vietnam War and instead escalated the bombing in that country as well as bombing Cambodia in 1970. You talk about "whining." Your hero wishes to increase the amount of troops being sent to Afghanistan, where about a month ago 90 Afghans were slaughtered by 500 lb. and 2000 lb. American bombs, 60 of them being children. It is highly unlikely that Obama weeps for those children who were murdered by American fighter planes. Or perhaps Obama and you believes that the families of those dead and mangled children are "whiners" for cursing the United States for killing their children.

As commenter #53 correctly inquires, why is Nader not in these debates? Unfortunately, the answer is that the heads of the commission that controls the debates had major connections to the Democratic and Republican parties and for that reason would be terrified that a person like Nader would expose Obama and McCain to Americans as being so pro corporate and so belligerent and so militaristic and imperialistic in their rhetoric. After all, Americans must remember that they have a choice who to vote for in this country as long as that choice is limited to either a Democratic or a Republican.

I wasn't aware that Obama had already taken charge of the WH and has a say in whether we attack villages in Afghanistan. My bad. Did you even read what I wrote?

Obama would never bomb Iran; because he's a muslim. Boom, boom.

.

But seriously Obama is clever enough to know how to PLAY the game. Reading the subtext of his arguments clearly shows that he does not see Iran as a massive threat. You need votes to win an election, and he is a politician, that all you need to know.

PS. In my estimation McCain easily beat Obama in the debate, he was more eloquent and measured and frankly I was surprised. Obama performed well, but was often stumbling and has a really irritating habit of saying 'Let's be CLEAR', 'I want to be CLEAR on this', 'Let's CLEAR this up'. I personally think the American people will vote for change, the change candidate, frankly after the currrent bunch of clowns have left the White House anyone could do a better job.

NorthWest Lib @ 109:

Uncle Joe Mccarthy @ 43:

Gary @ 32:

The republican guard of Iran is a terrorist organization? Oh puh-lease.

The zionist in Obama really came out last night.

funny....most jews dont trust him

guess he must be doing something right

and i wish you idiots would stop throwing around the term "zionist" to anyone who supports the state of israel and its right to exist

maybe it has been our closest ally in the mideast for over 50 years....ever think about that?

Zionism is an ideology. It's aimed at establishing a nation for Jews only, while it disregards the native population of the land, i.e. the Palestinians.

As a result, Zionism is a racist/bigoted (take your pick) ideology. It's not inclusive, it's not fair, it's not democratic.

Had Israel abandoned Zionism and embraced all other religions, including Christians and Muslims, equally, then perhaps one could refer to it as a "democracy", instead of a "Zionist" state.

[Knock it off with the half truths and lies now. Read this, where it says: "The State of Israel will be open for Jewish immigration and for the Ingathering of the Exiles; it will foster the development of the country for the benefit of all its inhabitants; it will be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel; it will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture; it will safeguard the Holy Places of all religions; and it will be faithful to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations." Thank you. Site Monitor]

Site Monitor's idealism, if not its partisanship, is quite touching as well as revealing when it quotes an article which states that the State of Israel "will foster the development of the country for the benefit of all its inhabitants." This seems to be similar in saying that Article I Section 8 of the U.S Constitution states that, among other things, only congress shall declare war. The point, of course, is that while the U.S. Constitution clearly makes that provision it does not mean that this is faithfully carried out, as evidenced by the ascendancy of the imperial presidency and by congress abnegating its responsibility to carry out its duties. Likewise, while the document that Site Monitor may sound quite noble in theory, what Site Monitor conveniently does not say is how the Israelis have uprooted the Palestinians from their homes since 1948 and have made their lives a living hell. One finds it curious how a liberal site can work up zero compassion for the Palestinians while extolling the virtues of the [allegedly] pure and ethical Israelis.

This thread should be called progressives insist on purity over winning. Obama has to play the tough guy game to disarm the rabid right wing of this country and get elected. Anyone that truly believes he is the same as McCain, I have a bridge to nowhere to sell you.

He won't have to worry about that the decision is already made! The bombing will begin after the election and before the Inaugural! Israel will start it we are giving them the means to do it! From DemocracyNow.org 16 Sept and no one is talking about this we should be demanding that the congress object to this deal!

US to Sell 1,000 New Bunker Buster Bombs to Israel

The Bush administration has announced it plans to supply the Israeli Air Force 1,000 new bunker buster bombs built by Boeing that are designed to penetrate fortified facilities located deep underground. The Jerusalem Post reports the bombs would likely be used in the event of an Israeli strike on Iran. The Defense Security Cooperation Agency notified Congress about the planned sale of the GBU-39 bombs over the weekend. Congress has thirty days to object to the $77 million deal.
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/9/16/headlines

A few things left out last night not unexpectedly given how American Jingoism frames these American foreign affairs "debates".

Barack Obama's evidently shallow grounding beyond stock doctrinal American Empire precepts and his apparent nonacquaintance with what can be/is found at TomDispatch.com or Zmag.org every day.

The premise of American Militarism and the funding it consumes every day,week,month and year went unchallenged.

The premise of AIPAC/Israeli Zionism dominance and shut out over a long overdue American review and reset of American policy regarding Israel,the brutal Israeli Occupation of Arab Palestine and why American interests should not be linked to the rabid and unsustainable Israeli Zionism of the Israeli Zionists. Israel is not a Democracy. Israel is a Theocracy. Is this understood at all?

The premise that it is OK for Americans to be in West Asia and Central Asia killing many civilians(often with Sky Terrorism) and to ignore/disregard the morals/ethics doing so surely violates.

What about Israel's illegal status regarding how it acquired and has piled up a sizeable stockpile of atomic weapons? Why is Israel not held to same standard Americans throw at and "demonize" Iran with repeatedly?

What about the fiscal insanity of American "defense" expenditures that exceed next ten nations spending on "defense"?

Where was the question regarding Americans invading and staying on in Iraq to gain control or gatekeeper rights on Iraqi oil?

One would not expect McCain to touch on the above but Obama not doing so leads to the very disturbing conclusion there is little/no difference between these two men regarding primary American Empire conduct,goals and premises.

Barack Obama is not a stupid man so why is he going with more Stupid after the last near eight years of Bush/Cheney Stupid?

Only an unstable individual would bomb Iran. Only John McCain, Dick Cheney, and petulant neophytes like Palin would actually choose to take preemptive action on Iran. I highly doubt that Obama would be stupid enough to do it no matter what pressure he received from AIPAC.

Bombing Iran would shut down part or all of the world economy.

1. It would most likely block the straight of Hormuz where 17 million barrels pass through everyday.

2. This would shock the oil market and send prices up to over 200 hundred dollars a barrel.

3. This would make for the worst stock market crash in U.S. history and would thus cripple the world economy.

4. We would also be in a new cold war with China and Russia.

5. With a real terrorist network gunning for us (Hezbollah), I really don't believe that what is left of the constitution would remain standing. Cheney's dream of a unitary executive would come true. Unitary executive being a euphemism for fascism.

Iraq was status quo. Iran is the big one. Once the bombs drop all of our lives will be personally changed. Obama would not make the decision to end the American Dream. I think that Grandpa Psycho would in a split second, maverick moment.

That is why this election is so important because it is referendum on the Iran War and our very democracy. Don't just vote for Obama. In most states that won't make a lick of difference----SEND THE OBAMA CAMPAIGN MONEY. It's tax deductible anyway for Lord's sakes.

Edwin Hussein @ 126:

Edwin Hussein @ 112:

[Knock it off with the half truths and lies now. Read this, where it says: “The State of Israel will be open for Jewish immigration and for the Ingathering of the Exiles; it will foster the development of the country for the benefit of all its inhabitants; it will be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel; it will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture; it will safeguard the Holy Places of all religions; and it will be faithful to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations.” Thank you. Site Monitor]

Unless you are Palestinian. Open your eyes. I've had it with Israel. I used to be somewhat supportive/sensitive to their "plight", but not anymore.

If I'm not mistaken, the president swore to uphold the Constitution. Seems like a lot of empty words, when we see "facts on the ground."

You're right. Israeli politics mirror American politics. But the policies executed by the political parties in temporary power do not make the constitutions of either nation.

And, again, the nexus of American and Israeli policy are, imo, coincidental. If Israeli policy ran head-on with those of Exxon-Mobil, Israel would lose. The fact that Israel's foreign policy seldom strays from that of Big Oil tells me that it's Israel who's being played.

But it's easy to blame the Jews- they've been blamed for all of the ills of the world from just west of Pakistan all the way to the Pacific coast of the Americas for a few millenia now. It's time for the world to take responsibility for its own fuck-ups now.

Erroll @ 120:

Ron @ 113:

Erroll @ 80:

Ron @ 51:

Assuming that what you write is supposed to be taken seriously, stating that "Obama has to appear to bend to the right to be elected" is reminiscent of Richard Nixon, when he claimed in 1968 to have a "secret plan" to end the Vietnam War and instead escalated the bombing in that country as well as bombing Cambodia in 1970. You talk about "whining." Your hero wishes to increase the amount of troops being sent to Afghanistan, where about a month ago 90 Afghans were slaughtered by 500 lb. and 2000 lb. American bombs, 60 of them being children. It is highly unlikely that Obama weeps for those children who were murdered by American fighter planes. Or perhaps Obama and you believes that the families of those dead and mangled children are "whiners" for cursing the United States for killing their children.

As commenter #53 correctly inquires, why is Nader not in these debates? Unfortunately, the answer is that the heads of the commission that controls the debates had major connections to the Democratic and Republican parties and for that reason would be terrified that a person like Nader would expose Obama and McCain to Americans as being so pro corporate and so belligerent and so militaristic and imperialistic in their rhetoric. After all, Americans must remember that they have a choice who to vote for in this country as long as that choice is limited to either a Democratic or a Republican.

I wasn't aware that Obama had already taken charge of the WH and has a say in whether we attack villages in Afghanistan. My bad. Did you even read what I wrote?

Did you actually even read what I wrote, where you said "Obama has to appear to bend to the right to be elected" and your use of the word "whiners" which I clearly took to mean that no tolerance should be given to anyone who dares to criticize the great and noble Obama? Your words, not mine. No, Obama has not "taken charge of the WH" but one does not have to wait for him to do that in order to know his position viv a vis Afghanistan as well as Pakistan and Iran. I suggest that you may wish to know a little more about your candidate since he is on record as saying that he wishes to redeploy American forces from Iraq, anywhere from 32,000 to about 80,000, to Afghanistan, where they will undoubtedly add more suffering and misery to what Afghans have already experienced at the hands of the United States military. This is why Obama can be viewed as being even more dangerous than McCain because while McCain does not hide his overt militaristic intentions, Obama disguises his under the umbrella of American neoliberalism. Obama's supporters would do well to beware of Obama's stealth intentions.

You still take what I said out of context and no, I didn't say that Obama is great and noble. So, you take everything out of context. I suspect that you are one of the whiners I referred too.

MarktheSpark @ 124:

Obama was weak. The RePukes are the party of sociopathic bullying, and he let McSame talk over him, insult him repeatedly as naive and "he hasn't got a clue" [read: Stupid], etc.

He took up RePuke talking points like the evil Iranians gonna wipe out the noble Israelis (at least he didn't say there were plans for "a second Holocaust") and did not defend the word "liberal" when he was accused of being too much of one, just as John Kerry didn't in 2004. After the most vicious, corrupt, lying, incompetent Right-Wing criminal clique has controlled this country for eight years you never hear mainstreamers like Obama use "conservative" as an epithet. Yet "liberal", (those responsible for worker rights, civil rights, environmental safety, a social safety net, etc.) is equated with Terrorist, Traitor, Pervert, Coward, reverse racist, etc. by Fux News & the KKKarl Rove gang, w/ nary a peep of protest!

And yes, saying "I agree w/ John" over & over again was also poor strategy.

And yet how would you account for the fact that polls of undecided voters taken immediately after the debate showed Obama the clear winner?

Obama is trying to do two things at this point, (1) act presidential, and (2) demonstrate to the undecideds that he has a decent foreign policy. He did both last night. You don't like a few things he said? Tough shit. An Obama administration would move the US in the right direction. Perfection and democracy don't go hand-in-hand.

Honestly, some of you purists seem determined to ruin this election for the rest of us liberals. If anyone who considers him/herself to be a liberal or progressive decides not to vote for Obama because he's impure, I'd consider them to be as foolish as someone who votes for McCain because Palin's hockeymomishness "resonates" with them.

I have hopes for Obama, clearly a man who can listen and learn, but in one respect he has disappointed me a couple of times: Some of the comments he makes, like, catching and KILLING bin Laden, or saying, as Bush has just tried to make us believe, that we must act NOW to avoid a financial meltdown in America, BEFORE we even know what acting would really mean, or WHO would do the acting, well, some of these comments don't really ring true to the character of a man who is not actually LIKE Bush. It's like Obama has been PUSHED by Republicans into saying those things against his better judgement, because he knows that Republicans don't respect a guy who isn't "tough". Like "tough" has worked so well for us over the last eight years.
People with functioning brains know, of course, that earning the respect of a Republican today is like earning the respect of an armed juvenile delinquent. You do what he tells you to do, and you get to stay alive. Hardly a philosophical beacon to illuminate your entire creative life.
These are not the sort of people to whom one would even wish to give the time of day, but Obama knows he must work with them.
I just pray that their M.O. and the language they use don't become his own.
We catch bin Laden and we submit him to civilized justice. Not the lynching by proxy which Hussein, to our eternal shame, was filmed having to endure. And not a "killing". We gather facts from people who do not have a hysterical or fanatical agenda, we hold a trial, and we mete out the appropriate sentence, as prescribed by our laws and by the international protocols, treaties and traditions built up and fought for by civilized nations over decades or even centuries.
Or we effectively become the enemy, like our current White House administration.

Another trivial thought, stupidly omitted from my long post above:
We get some plausible, scientific and ADULT explanation of what happened identically, but not simultaneously, to two separate fireproof towers in Manhattan on 9/11, as well as an acknowledgement of what obviously happened to WT7 nearby, so that we can be sure that bin Laden WAS, indeed, involved, beyond the fact that he said he was happy about that appalling day and might have scored political points at home for appearing to have been behind it, or behind the Saudi Arabians widely claimed to have been the terrorists directly involved.
I somehow doubt that Obama is up to that, but he gets my vote anyway.
The alternative means just willingly voting stupid.
I don't do that.

So I guess most of you would rather have a McCain presidency, because Obama is a "stealth" candidate hiding... what? Who knows?

What position did you want Obama to take on Iran? He is willing to have direct talks. He believes that we can negotiate to stop a nuclear Iran. For Obama to stand on stage and say Iran poses no threat is political suicide. And most people here criticizing him, know it. If Naderites screw up this election, the liberal movement will be D.O.A.

McCain said he looked into Putin eyes and saw KGB. McCain has said he won't bring the troops home until HE believes the mission is done. McCain wants to expand NATO to Russia's border, provoking a potential military crisis. But yet again, Obama is being criticized on "liberal" (aka whiny know-it-all) blogs. Most of you are simply whiners, unwilling to actually work for any sort of real change. And no Obama isn't going to save the world. But McCain is unwilling to refocus efforts in Iraq, to capture Bin Laden (and as a person who lives in NYC, I'm insulted by the idea that the regime that supported and hid Osama Bin Laden, the Taliban, is now seen as innocent players by some of you). The man has a myopic vision, unsupported by any facts. Some of you need to get real.

Nader can't win. Ron Paul can't win. Bob Barr can't win. One of two men will be president, start acting like an adult, and choose the one who gives the country the best chance moving forward.

driven989 @ 53:

I don't understand - Nader is on the ballot in 45 states. Why is he not allowed to debate?!

What a bullshit Democracy this is...

..'cause he's a worthless egotist, that's why.

I agree with all this entirely.
Especially the bit about Naderites and Paulites.
Obama has a tricky job to keep us all happy, being our only hope and all.

My only fear is that acting more Republican or "tough" than you are will very likely show through.
We have a hundred years of experience now with both brilliant and terrible Hollywood actors.
We can now tell the difference between brilliant and terrible.
Faking, even in a noble cause, tends to look fake.

MarktheSpark @ 138:

Hey Castanea at 131: Can't we disagree w/out being rude & McCainish. E.g. "You don't like everything Obama says. Tough shit"!

I don't, but for the record I will likely hold my nose & vote for him. But again, my substantive points are this: The RePukes are bullies. Unless you have a higher authority to run to for protection, the best way to stand up to a bully is by being tough & pushing back. When the word "liberal" has been used as an epithet for 30 yrs. (since St. Ronnie of the Death Squads) & the alleged "liberals" still won't defend it, I think that's sad. Letting your opponent set the terms of the debate is not a winning strategy.

I'm glad "independent" voters apparently liked Obama's performance, but a lot of "independent" voters are pretty damn ignorant. If you've seen the gang-rape the Repukes have performed on this country for decades and you're still "in the middle", you ain't the brightest bulb.

So let's concede: a lot of the American public are stupid. Politicians learn to pander to stupid people. Obama is a politician. (If you care to rebut any of these FACTs go ahead and try. Can you do so without ad hominem attacks or name-calling? Maybe as a "purist" you've decided I'm you're enemy. I'm probably not as much your enemy as some clown who could go pull a lever for McSame-Palin)

Finally, Obama's most heinous, idiotic statement: "No American soldier has ever died in vain!" HaHA Haw! I'm laughing now, but I cringed at this embrace of jingoistic ignorant militarism. What glorious "cause" did the cannon-fodder (incl. American) in WWI die for? Geopolitical chess games? The American troops that slaughtered 2,000,000 Filipinos, mostly civilian, between 1900-12? Or those who murdered millions of "gooks" (as the heroic McSame calls them to this day)? As long as the Demo's play the "I love killing foreign brown people as much as my Repuke opponent" card, we'll have a racist, murderous & very Expensive foreign policy that results in blowback like 9/11.

Pointing out the Emperor's nakedness when he is (as Obama intermittently chooses to be) does not make me a "purist", it just makes me someone who prefers truth to lies. Maybe I'm a dirty fucking hippy in your eyes but sorry, I refuse to accept an opinion just because the "majority" believes in it.

A passionate, inspiring and spot-on post.
I do feel, however that Obama's "No soldier ever died in vain" was probably a sincere enough comment on the fact that the dead soldiers sometimes get killed for doing their best for a Commander-In-Chief who is unworthy of them, and they therefore deserve our respect for that.

Obama is a good litte Likudnik, as are ALL of the national-level candidates in the United States. They all support Israeli demands despite the fact that our interests are not parallel and in many cases are a detriment to the United States.

McCain = Palin = Obama = Biden - They ALL follow a JINSA blueprint for foreign policy.

Ron @ 136:

Erroll @ 132:

#129-Ron

Very good job of not addressing my criticism of Obama's foreign policy positions which you brought up when you pointed out what Obama is or is not advocating regarding Afghanistan at comment #113. This would seem to confirm the suspicion that Obama's supporters believe in him because they have "hope" in what he "might" do, though there is ample evidence already of Obama's belligerent intentions toward third world countries in the Middle East as well as continuing the policies of Bush by stating that he he has no hesitation in sending in American forces into Pakistan when he has, to use Obama's phrase, "actionable intelligence", whose dubious intelligence has already resulted in the deaths of six Pakistanis, including two children. Not very laudable positions to take for an [alleged] antiwar candidate.

Just take a few seconds to tell us how as a candidate, Obama is responsible for anything that has taken place in Afghanistan or Pakistan. I'm really trying to be polite but you are pushing me.

Now it seems that you are the one who is putting words in my mouth. I never said that he is responsible for what is taking place in Afghanistan and Pakistan. I did say, however, as I attempted to point out, apparently to no avail, his bellicose foreign policy positions vis a vis Afghanistan and Pakistan, that you can, if you read very slowly and carefully, at comments #80, 120, 132.

Cobra @ 142:

To all the Nader fans out there:

1) We know about his past consummer advocacy, but what the hell does this man do lately besides run for President every 4 years?

2) If, in the unfathomable event that Nader gets elected, whom does he expect to caucus with to get any of his platform accomplished?

3) Why should Nader get more coverage or privileges than any of the other fringe candidates for President, like Green Party candidate Cynthia McKinney or Constitution Party candidate Chuck Baldwin?

4) Why should any conscious minority (34% of the US Population) view Ralph Nader with anything but contempt for his racist statements about Barack Obama trying to "talk white?"

Finally, it's amazing to me watching people on the left projecting their insecurities on Democratic Political figures. Barack Obama had to accomplish three goals on the foreign policy debate Friday, since he's operating with a lead:

1) Show a command of the material, assuaging the "empty suit" charges of the right.
2) Consistantly link McCain to the failed economic and foreign policies of the Bush Administration.
3) Look Presidential, not to McCain supporters, but to the undecideds and uncommitted voters.

He accomplished all three, in my opinion.

McCain, operating from behind, and having the worst two weeks imaginable, needed a game changer, and some soundbites to try to change minds. Foreign policy was supposed to be his strongest advantage over Obama, so he had to score a unanimous decision. IMHO, he did not.

I think we on the left have to realize that in America 2008, 45% of voters will support a head of cabbage if it had an (R) label on it. The same thing apllies to
the Democrats. The fight is for that remaining 10%, and in a national election made up of 50 state races with swing states involved, that final 10% is critical.

If that means making Bubbies in Boca Raton, and Bubbas in Battle Creek feel more secure about picking him, then Obama is right to take these POLITICAL stances. There is no silver medal in this race, people.

--Cobra

Cobra

Nader had said that if there was no one who would come forward to challenge the corporate and militant rhetoric of the Democrats, then he would do so. Kucinich did do this but then ended up, like he did in 2004, endorsing a candidate who was anathema to his positions. If, as you say, in the unlikely event that the American people came to their senses and elected Nader/Gonzalez, then the hope would be that Nader could plead his positions to the American people, such as that the U.S. has no business placing its troops in other countries and that there should be a universal single payer health care system. Perhaps by doing that, Nader could then shame the Democrats in doing the right things by going along with his very sensible proposals. You are incorrect when you claim that Nader is somehow seeking more privileges than the other candidates. He has never said that. Rather, he has said that the debates should be more open and that would mean that other third party candidates should be allowed in the debates other than the Democrats and the Republicans.

What you conveniently did not do was compare Nader's positions on the issues with that of McCain and especially of Obama. If one were to do that, one would certainly find that Nader is by far the more genuinely progressive and anti-militant and anti-corporate candidate of the three. But those who are in charge of the debates were also previously highly connected with the Democrats and the Republicans which is the reason why they are not allowing any third party candidates to challenge the status quo that is being proffered by both Obama and McCain.